Advantage/Disadvantage
 

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?

In my opinion, yes, this is how adv/disadv should be applied. I use it for this exact scenario as well as others, ie: borderline illegal screen well away from the ball in which the guy coming off the screen isn't truly trying to get open. A foul on the pass for a wide open break away lay up. A slight bump 20 ft from the basket on a drive to the hole which may lead to an easy layup.

Choose your words wisely if you plan on mentioning this principle to a coach during a game.

Most coaches around here understand it, and only cry for "over the back" when their guy doesn't get the rebound (if only they could understand it's legal to reach over someone).

Rebounding is a good place to begin to apply it. Other good examples:

1. A1 driving into the lane and gets his arm slapped as he gets past the defender, but the slap has no affect on the drive.

2. Shooter underneath, defender jumps with him and bodies slightly bump; but there's no discernable affect on the shot.

3. A1 driving into the lane and runs into a defender with LGP (or stationary), but doesn't displace the defender.

"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."

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

Contact Situations
 

You'll notice all the examples so far have dealt with using discernment to decide whether the contact rises to level of foul. Many here will avow that advantage/disadvantage should not be applied to violations. Also have a read at http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post646238 for the defining document for NFHS, the Tower Philosophy.

Enjoy

Bet very few players have a FT% approaching 75% who come close to violating the 10 second rule consistently.

I have only seen this called once in my career and I did not call it. And it was the only time I really can think of that a player got that close or was way over the line in time. Other than that, if a player gets to 5 that is an accomplishment.

BTW, I give the guy crap every time I see him about this call. :p

Peace

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

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.

Another school: Think about contact in terms of was it Marginal or Illegal.

Also helps with the explanation: Coach, In my opinion, that contact was marginal and didn't affect your player's ability to ______.

If the contact was illegal, if it clearly affected the player's RSBQ: Whistle

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.

bas2456,
As you have already seen, the application of advantage/disadvantage leads to interpretation which leads to inconsistency in officiating. If you have any question about this view, simply read the posts that have been made in this thread.

Years ago, a clinician mentioned that there is no quicker way for an official to irritate a coach than to apply advantage/disadvantage and there is no quicker way to issue a technical foul than trying to explain that call to a coach.

For example, there are officials who will not call an obvious illegal dribble (such as when a point guard clearly gets his entire hand under the ball on a dribble) if there is no defensive pressure since "the player did not gain an advantage" with the illegal dribble since there were no defenders in close proximity. If you fail to make the call AND then try to explain it to the defensive coach, the words can cause a problem later on. The slope gets slippier when the point guard for the other team gets a breakaway lay-up later in the game and the same action happens -- the player clearly gets his hand completely under the ball -- on one of his last couple dribbles. As soon as the official makes this call, trouble lurks. Are you going to call this an illegal dribble, after all, there was no defender nearby?

In today's game -- especially varsity level -- officials MUST utilize advantage/disadvantage. Otherwise, most games would have no flow. While you need to apply it, I would not necessarily recommend discussing it that way with the coaches. I prefer terms such as "the player was able to play through the contact" or "the contact was incidental" You are, in essence applying advantage/disadvantage, you just aren't explaining that way to the coaches.

I've used that explanation, but with the word "incidental" instead of "marginal".

Coach, you seem to miss the point; or I'm misunderstanding you.

Advantage/disadvantage is required, by rule, for contact to be a foul. It's not about not calling fouls to keep the game flowing; it's about distinguishing between incidental contact and a foul.

Officials have to apply A/D, not because of game flow, but because the rules call for it.

And the only time coaches get upset when you apply A/D is when they don't get a foul call. I've had a coach get just as angry when I was too quick to call a foul on marginal contact that took away a layup.

Snaqs,
My point is that using the term "Advantage/Disadvantage" with a coach can be problematic.

Further, read some of the posts -- including yours -- that contradict other officials' view of when/how to apply "Advantage/Disadvantage". Using terms such as "incidental" has worked better for me rather than "Advantage/Disadvantage" -- that is unless I am on a soccer pitch. :D

I agree, I don't use the term "A/D" with coaches. Then again, I haven't had to explain much to coaches when I pass on most of these. "Coach, your guy beat him anyway and got a wide open shot." That works, but they normally understand this anyway.

And yes, there is some disagreement on how to apply it, but I think you'd find it's more a matter of semantics here than an actual difference on the court.

Even my disagreement, in this thread, with jar falls into the semantics category, I think. I doubt he'd call it much differently than I would.

The fact is, applying A/D takes time and games to get right; and there is a progression among officials when learning it. But in the end, it leads to greater consistency rather than less. We cannot call every contact a foul, so A/D provides a more consistent basis for distinguishing.

I once had a conversation with a coach (not in a gym setting) where we were discussing basketball and I mentionned adv/disadv. He interrupted me and said that was part of the trouble with officials is that we took concepts like A/D that were not in the rulebook and applied them to game situations. I told him that A/D is actually in the rulebook and that it is our job to use it as a way of determing incidental versus illegal. He did not believe me. I had to show him the rulebook before he believed me. This was a long time coach who had been under the impression that A/D was an invention of officials.

And by doing so you now have rules backing for any dickhead coach that might question you.

The only response needed imo is "Coach, that was incidental contact." Anything more than that is a rules seminar.

Largely Agree. I have a very good friend who has been a basketball coach for over 20 years. I have coached against him for much of that time. He frequently gets upset with officials. When he gets irritated with officials, he will tell me, "ALL I am looking for is consistency." :)

The inconsistency, in my opinion, is largely due to a couple of factors. First of all, inexperience. It takes a great deal of time to become consistent as an official -- and none of us will ever be perfect in this area. I feel that this is the toughest part of officiating is consistently making each call during a quarter, during a game, and during a season. The second factor is a large variance within the way officials call a game. In other words, as individuals, we are calling a consistent game, but as a "crew" we are not consistent since one is calling a tighter game than the other. I now largely work with a couple of different crews. In each case, we call a similar game. When I work games with "blind dates", it is more likely that we will be inconsistent -- not because we are individually inconsistent, but because we apply advantage/disadvantage differently during a game.

And "All I am looking for is consistency" is coachese for "All I am looking for is ALL the close calls to go in my favor." He gets upset with officials because they won't do that.

I know your friend. He's a typical coach.

I take cries for consistency with a block of salt. I understand the "similar plays similar whistles" philosophy; but sometimes the plays aren't as similar from our perspective as they seem to a biased coach.

Sometimes, we see the close plays so clearly it's not even funny. Defender on one end gets into position just in time, but in time, and we call the PC. On the other end, the defender may be clearly (but closely) late so we call the block.

The same concept applies to incidental contact; especially in the paint and especially with disparate talent. Two point guards for opposite teams, A1 going to D1 next year and B1 a freshman thrown into the starting job by injuries. A1 will be able to play through a lot more contact than B1, so even though A/D may be applied consistently, it may look inconsistent to the untrained eye.

What rule?
 

What rule specifically uses the word(s) advantage / disadvantage ?

The definitions of "foul" and "incidental contact." A foul involves "illegal contact" which hinders the opponent from making "normal defensive and offensive movements."

Inidental contact includes contact which does not prevent "normal defensive and offensive movements."

The words aren't there, but that's what it means.

Ask your interpreter. He was on the rules committee for a 4 year term recently and I am sure he can give you a good explanation at the mid-season meeting either this Sunday or next.

Jurassic,
Trust me, he is anything but TYPICAL...:)

You are ABSOLUTELY correct in this case.

My point is that one of the most common things we hear from coaches, spectators, players, etc., is "just be consistent." The fact is, this "just" request is one of the most challenging skills that officials/referees/umpires of all sports learn only through games and games of experience.

Rule 4 (Snaqs has cited the specific definitions) uses the concept of advantage/disadvantage without using those words.

I have a problem with NFHS wanting us to apply advantage/disadvantage, and then making a point in the rules clinic that the coaches attend in regards to handchecking that handchecking is to be called in certain situations regardless of whether an advantage is gained or disadvantage created.

That's the problem I've run into with coaches lately re: handchecking. They are told at the rules meeting that if you spot up your opponent with your hand/arm, release, and then spot up again, *tweet*.

They are also told that if you put a hand on and leave it there, *tweet*.

ADV/DADV doesn't apply in those interpretations, so we are left blowing in the wind. I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer as to how to solve this dilemma.

Sounds like a state issue to me. The NFHS doesn't do rules clinics that I'm aware of; but I think part of the issue is that a good guard can hand check to advantage in a way that is difficult for us to detect.

Coach: "Why didn't you call a foul on that shot at the horn? He got hammered."

Me: "It's the advantage/disadvantage principle, coach. If I called a foul, the free throws might have sent the game into overtime and that's to my disadvantage." :D

I have found over the years that the times I talked advantage/disadvantage with a coach almost always got me in trouble. Stick to the rules and be short. "The contact was incidental" and move on.

Why do I think this exchange has already happened?

Why do you care what coaches think? Coaches think if you look at their player wrong it is a foul. Hand-checking does not circumvent the current rules. There is nothing different about hand-checking than any other contact foul, the difference is they defined what is hand-checking. This is why judgment is what makes or breaks us as officials. We either have it or we do not in my opinion.

Peace

So displacement doesn't necessarily mean change in advantage/disadvantage? I saw this last night at Canisius-Iona game. A1 inbounds to A2. B bumps A2 displacing him by 1 step. B throws his arms out in the "I didn't mean it" gesture and retreats to front court. No pressure then on A1 or A2. A displacement for sure...and it COULD have forced A2 to walk, and it COULD have resulted in a 10 second violation, but neither happened. No call by ref...is this the right thing? Thanks.

BTW, as a sometimes guilt-ridden former coach I have sympathy for you all, most of the time (well, some of the time)...I sat behind the visiting bench and the coach chirped all night, he had a ***** on every single opposition possession...sheesh that was irritating and more than a little distracting.

It's not my job to "care," but it is my job to communicate. I wish I could go through a game and not have to interact with the coaches, but the fact is that we do. It's not unreasonable for a coach to ask a question (if he/she does it in the right way), and for us to give a reasonable answer. Problem is, I still haven't been able to come up with a reasonable answer in this instance.

When I pass on a handcheck because I don't think an advantage (or disadvantage) was gained, coaches are consistently asking me this year why I'm not calling it. Some of them are composed when they talk to me, others fly off the handle. The latter I can deal with.

The former is who I have been struggling with. These are coaches who remember explicitly from the rules clinic that if you put the hand on, then take it off, then put it back on, it's an "automatic" handcheck. That's how it was explained at this year's rule clinic, and we were told that was coming down from NFHS. Also, that two hands on the body is an "automatic" handcheck. Or that keeping a hand or forearm for an "extended" period of time is "automatic."

So, my opportunity as an official to make a judgment call is taken away and I either have to give the coach a stupid look and feel like an idiot when he asks me (in a reasonable manner) why I'm not calling it, or, since I'm doing freshman and JV ball, I have to call 50 handchecks during the course of one game.

Seems right to me. Causing the non-pivot foot to move on such a throw-in doesn't prevent A2 from "normal offensive maneuvers."

IF it had caused a travel, then a fould would (or should) have been called. If the bump was because of continuing pressure, or stopped a pass, etc., the a foul would (or should) have been called.

I could give a crap what coaches are told in a clinic. I do not base my communication based on what they think they know or understand. I call my game based on the rules and my judgment. If they do not like it, that is their problem. I probably passed many schools to work their school, so what they think is a hand-check is not my concern or affect what I do. The rules say what a hand-check is, and if there is no advantage I am not calling it. Touching is not a foul. And I use the RSQB position (Rhythm, Speed, Quickness and Balance). If those things are not affected, then it is not a foul. Some players blow by defenders that try to put their hands on them. I am not calling a foul or calling a "game interrupter" just to satisfy a coach. I do call a lot of hand-checks early and it stops really quickly because those players will not be in the game too long if they do not know how to play defense without their hands. ;)

Peace

So if you go to an official state rules clinic, with coaches and officials all in attendance, and everyone is told by the rules interpreter "Coaches, we're going to call A this year" and you go out and call "B" on the court, and the coach asks you why, what reason are you going to give the coach?

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?

Just so you know my state has online rules meetings as well as live meetings. The coaches never attend the live meetings (which are held with local associations most of the time now) and not all coaches attended anyway. All that was required is a school send a single representative for the entire coaching staff. So I do not go around worrying what the Freshman B coach told the head coach that did not have the time to attend the meeting themselves.

When I tell coaches things, I give them the rule. If they do not know what I am talking about, that is their problem. I want to be able to say something that can be verified. It is not my responsibility to explain anything in the first place. It is a courtesy. Not something I stay up at night worrying about.

Peace

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.

To Fiasco's point: There are some words in the 2008-2009 rules book under "POE" that seem to take much of the judgment out of the hand-check foul.

At the front of the NFHS rulebook is a preamble called "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES". In that is found this statement:
"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

Self-explanatory and been there forever.

And those still do not circumvent the rules that are in place. The POE did not change anything in the rules, they just gave guidelines. And those still involve judgment. ;)

Peace

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.

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! ;)

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.

Thanks, bob. I don't have my old rule book anymore. Can anyone post the wording bob's talking about?

I believe this is it:

Hand-checking. Defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler or offensive players away from the ball. Hand-checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person using illegal hands/tactics. An offensive player who uses his/her hands or body to push off in order to create a more favorable position has committed a foul. Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player:
1) Continuously places a hand on the opposing player – it is a foul.
2) Places both hands on a player – it is a foul.
3) Continuously jabs a hand or forearm on an opponent – it is a foul.

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.

BITS, like Rut's post, I also found yours very helpful. I've also learned (the hard way) that I better be pre-gaming hand-checking with my partner. Again, (learning the hard way) I realize that if you call it early it tends to not be an issue as the game progresses....don't call it early, you've dug a hole that's tough to climb out of.

To my mind, this statement is not saying that hand checks are in some sense "automatic" independent of whether they create an illegal advantage.

Rather, it gives examples of how hand checking creates an illegal advantage and thus why hand checks need to be called more.

Helping officials recognize advantage/disadvantage is different from announcing "automatic" fouls, IMO. Officials and coaches should not interpret this kind of statement as endorsing an "automatic" foul independent of advantage/disadvantage.

I've been consistently applying RSBQ thinking to all situations like this during the season and it's really worked for me. I don't know if I've had more hand checks or other fouls committed against dribblers, but I know better where my line is.

Coming to the end of the first half last night, I had a dribbler start towards the hoops and was directed away from the basket and I called a hand-check foul. It was just too much. The visiting coach said there's gotta be more there to work with and I let him make his comments -- the funny part is they had a foul to give and he subbed in to let this kid ride the kid and hoped he could have his cake and eat it too, I guess.

Disagree completely.

The FED is telling us through that POE that those examples are no-brainers. There's no judgment required at all and they ARE automatic foul calls. They emphasized that by issuing the statement that "hand-checking is NOT incidental contact." By stating that, they took the guesswork right out of the call.

You can either follow the FED's direction or decide not to. My recommendation is to check locally and then follow their direction.

Really? Which parts of this:

are vague?

The word continuously is open for interpretation. The only automatic I see is "two hands" and I've been calling this for years (as have my partners).

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.

The way I read it, NFHS is trying to tell us that the defender gains an advantage (whether we perceive it or not) automatically upon these three examples, and we are to call it.

The problem is these are not rules, they were guidelines. And it is not a foul unless you feel they fit the guidelines and does not conflict with the rules. Now just like anything else, we are judged on our judgment. I have never called these automatic, but I call a lot of hand-checks (more than most). And just because they say these are said to be fouls, does not mean there is no judgment involved either. The rules are clear what legal guarding position is, but we have people that have little ability to be consistent to call that part of the game correctly. I am still looking for some advantage to call these and may wait a second or two to see the advantage. No different than any other foul I may call. And if I call it, I can use the rules and the guidelines as a way to justify the call. That is all I am going to do and it works for me.

Peace

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.

Disagree. They are "points of emphasis," meaning, they are areas of the rules the committee wants to emphasize. I think the committee intends POEs to be a little more stringent than you suggest.

Can you show me where these things are in the current rulebook? ;)

Peace

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.