Advantage/Disadvantage

[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?

[bbcof83]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

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.

"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."

[Adam]

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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[justacoach]

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 10 second FT violation for the defining document for NFHS, the Tower Philosophy.

Enjoy