Advantage/Disadvantage

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I've heard this philosophy brought up quite a bit on the forum, and I was trying to apply it in my most recent games. I found myself most often applying it on rebounding action, when coaches are screaming for the "over the back" foul.

I found that if the rebounder secures the rebound without a problem, there's no reason to call a foul. Is this the right way to apply advantage/disadvantage?

Have you ever tried to explain advantag/disadvantage to a coach, and has it worked?

Here is the best way to understand the philosophy which also has rulebook backing. If the contact does not affect the movement or make a player lose the ball, then leave it alone. This takes some time to perfect and might take some time to be consistent. But a rebound is a good start.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the contact does not affect the movement or make a player lose the ball, then leave it alone.

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

[Ignats75]

I never use the term advantage or disadvantage with a coach. I did that once and he questioned my judgement the rest of the night. When I tried to get him to knock it off, he threw my words back at me. The only way to get him to stop was to whack him. It was one of my worst efforts of my career.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

Not necessarily true. If the contact prevents the player from going where he wants to go, it's a foul even if he keeps the ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Coach, there was some contact but it your guy still got around him. I don't want to take a layup away from your player."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not necessarily true. If the contact prevents the player from going where he wants to go, it's a foul even if he keeps the ball.

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.

[chartrusepengui]

Coach: "wasn't that a handcheck? At the meeting they said it was a handcheck!"

Me: "did you hear my whistle?"

Coach: "no"

There's yer sign!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. Or even if it does affect the movement, to a degree, but doesn't make the player lose the ball.

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.

I knew what you meant, but was addressing the way I read it. You're right, if he wasn't anywhere anyway, it's a no-call. That said, that bump is more likely to get called. If I can't verify there was no effect, I'm likely to make the call by default.

I think, also, when I read the post originally, I somehow missed "to a degree." My only point was that losing the ball isn't the only way to get a foul here.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the best way to understand the philosophy which also has rulebook backing. If the contact does not affect the movement or make a player lose the ball, then leave it alone. This takes some time to perfect and might take some time to be consistent. But a rebound is a good start.

Peace

How true. One of the areas where as a newer official I'm having difficulty. When watching the V game after my JV, it's one of the areas I focus on to see how the V guys officiate this part of the game. It's definitely an art IMO.
I read your post yesterday Rut, It helped put it into context for me. Tried to focus more on the affects of contact in my JV game earlier tonight. I felt I did a better job at letting them play, but felt that more than a couple of times I "fell asleep at the switch"....missed/passed on something I should have called and got myself in a hole. VC in my ear a lot, especially when I went to report a foul. Don't want to digress....just got to keep working at it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

How true. One of the areas where as a newer official I'm having difficulty. When watching the V game after my JV, it's one of the areas I focus on to see how the V guys officiate this part of the game. It's definitely an art IMO.
I read your post yesterday Rut, It helped put it into context for me. Tried to focus more on the affects of contact in my JV game earlier tonight. I felt I did a better job at letting them play, but felt that more than a couple of times I "fell asleep at the switch"....missed/passed on something I should have called and got myself in a hole. VC in my ear a lot, especially when I went to report a foul. Don't want to digress....just got to keep working at it.

I mentioned a standard progression that I've seen a lot of officials go through when learning and applying A/D.

1. New official, afraid to blow the whistle.
2. Not-as-new official, calls virtually everything he sees.
3. Discovers A/D, starts applying it but tends to let too much pass.
4. Begins to settle into an understanding of how to apply, improvement is steady at this point.

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I mentioned a standard progression that I've seen a lot of officials go through when learning and applying A/D.

1. New official, afraid to blow the whistle.
2. Not-as-new official, calls virtually everything he sees.
3. Discovers A/D, starts applying it but tends to let too much pass.
4. Begins to settle into an understanding of how to apply, improvement is steady at this point.

That's me - I think. Let too much hand checking go and let too much bumping of cutters go, as related to me by an assignor.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I mentioned a standard progression that I've seen a lot of officials go through when learning and applying A/D.

1. New official, afraid to blow the whistle.
2. Not-as-new official, calls virtually everything he sees.
3. Discovers A/D, starts applying it but tends to let too much pass.
4. Begins to settle into an understanding of how to apply, improvement is steady at this point.

Thanks Snags. I guess I'm at #3 right now. Based on your experience working with & observing new officials; when in the progression process should I at least be having some games when I'm closer to a #4 on A/D? I know that's tough for you to answer as obviously you've never seen me work. I'm just asking in a general sense...is this something you'd be looking for a newbie to start to master a bit after 2 seasons? 3 seasons? at the HS level? I realize the more you work the better you'll get at A/D. As a newbie I average two HSJV's a week combined with rec ball on the weekends. The JV's are not worked with board officials, so getting feedback on A/D from my partner is a little dicey.
Thanks again for the A/D progression illustration.