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 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.

[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."

[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

[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

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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.

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.

[Larks]

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

[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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

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?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larks

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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.

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.