"Spirit of the Rules"
 

I have been having an ongoing rules discussion with a very seasoned official who keeps referring to the "Spirit of the Rules" as justification for what I consider bogus rules interps.

Is this an NFHS publication?
Is it only available to highly experienced officials?
Where can I get my copy?

Please help me since I have been told that without the knowledge embodied in this great work that I will never advance beyond just being a "Rule Book Ref".:confused:

I believe it's written by the same author as "Proper Application of the Rules."

LOL, he's probably referring to the "intent and purpose of the rules," but I would ask him where he found it.

Curiously, what sorts of rules interps is he justifying this way?

I'm giddy with anticipation. Can't wait to get back from my meeting and catch up. :)

To answer your questions...

1) It's not an official NFHS publication, but this philosophy is noted in virtually every NFHS Officials Manual published.

2) Not only are these publications available to highly experienced officials, they are also available to woefully inexperienced coaches.

3) You can obtain a copy directly from the NFHS or your state association. Personally, I would suggest you consult your Athletic Director, so as to alert him to your ignorance of such a philosophy.

From the 2009 - 2011 NFHS Basketball Officials Manual -- Page 7
1.1.4 Rules Knowledge: Good officiating is partially dependent on a thorough
knowledge of the basketball rules and of all related materials that are published
each year. Most of the decisions on the floor must be made so quickly that they
come by reflex. The only way the proper reflexes can be perfected is through continual
study of all possible situations so that fundamentals and correct interpretations
are always clearly in mind. For such study, the following aids are helpful:
rules book, case book, simplified and illustrated rules, handbook, preseason
guides, Part I and II examinations, officiating mechanics exam, interpretations,
PowerPoints, video, discussion at state-sponsored and local meetings, and periodic
releases by the state association office.

Same old, same old....:)

A lot of guys use that when they're trying to justify screwing up or not knowing a rule. All they're basically tryingt to tell you is that the rulebook is wrong and they're right. And trying to mask their lack of rules knowledge by calling you a "rule book ref" (as if that's bad) is an old trick of their's too. It's a waste of time arguing with clowns like this.

The NFHS has issued the exact same statement for umpty-ump years at the front of the rule book, on p. 10 just before Rule 1. The FED talks about knowing and applying the "intent and purpose of a rule". But, the point that your friend is missing is that they also always sum up that section with "It is the policy of the NFHS basketball Rules Committee that there be no deviation from a rule unless experimental approval has been granted by the NFHS liason to the rules committee." Point that out to him and see what he has to say.

Wow...nice response. :rolleyes:

You get kicked out of the house or something?

Read the OP again. His point was....
forget it.
Bottom line, he's actually an official who is well aware of the purpose and intent of the rules. His point was entirely facetious. :rolleyes:

Whenever I hear a guy talk about how he used "the spirit of the rules" to explain a lack of rules adherence, it's usually from a guy who won't call a foul late in a close game unless reconstructive surgery is involved.

An official who has 3 sons who also officiate.

And he is also an official who is properly interpreting the rule in question; it's his veteran colleague who using this "spirit of the rule" justification to set aside the rule.

Spirit of the Rule is waayyy to subjective. I mean how do you define that in a gym where one team chants "We got spirit yes we do We got spirit how 'bout you"? Aren't they inferring that only ONE side has spirit or that one side has more spirit than the other? Very subjective!:cool:
If you need to CYA, it is better to be able to point to a section in the rule book then to say I was officiating by "the spirit of the rule". Or you can just say you blew the call which is also affective in small doses!!

The intent and purpose of the rules
 

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
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 a 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.

The tower philosophy
 

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

So the Tower Philosophy does not apply to female officials or female players?

It Was A Different World Back Then ...
 

Nor does it apply to Irish officials.

http://thm-a02.yimg.com/nimage/e4f46eca0407c916

I've been tossing around the concept "rules are an agreement."

In other words, the basketball-playing world (or any other sport, for that matter) has agreed that these are the rules. We've made an agreement, and I plan on sticking to it.

....and how do you know my response wasn't facetious as well ?? :rolleyes:

You make a good point. If it was, I apologize.

I didn't see a reference to "hot moms" in there either.

Just saying.....

Thats seems a little Harsh!

Would you blindly endorse the following invocation of "The Spirit of the Rules"?...The discussion hinged on 9-8-1 (10 second count in backcourt) which has been treated here many times

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///T:%5Ctemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Garamond; panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> "You clearly missed my reasoning. I know what the rule states, but the spirit of the rule is how I will govern it. Should the count start once the ball has backcourt status? Strict interpretation says 'YES'. The spirit of the rule tells you to allow a touch before the count starts. Am I wrong -- probably, but I have never started any count until the ball is touched.

There are many rules that we administer based on the spirit and not it's literal meaning. How many hand-checks do you see called? How many 3 sec violations do you see called? How many technical fouls do you see for flopping in a block/charge scenario? If we are giving leniency to the defense on some rules, why not give the offense the same?

If you wish to officiate strictly by the book, that is your choice, but it MAY lead to poor crew dynamics if all of you aren't on the same sheet of music."

For the record, you're more likely to lead to poor crew dynamics by saying, "I know what the rule says but I know better."

"if all of you aren't on the same sheet of music"

I've often wondered what his pregame sounds like as the crew decides when "spirit" is gonna supercede "by the book"!!!
I'm nominating this guy as the poster child for this year's #1 POE

Here is a copy of Lee, Lifeson's and Peart's pregame:

Begin the day with a friendly voice,
A companion unobtrusive
Plays the song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood.

Off on your way, hit the open road,
There is magic at your fingers
For the Spirit ever lingers,
Undemanding contact in your happy solitude.

Chorus
Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free

All this machinery making modern music
Can still be open-hearted.
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question of your honesty, yeah,
Your honesty.
One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity.

Chorus

For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall,
Concert hall
And echoes with the sounds of salesmen, of salesmen, of salesmen!

As stated prior, my original response was as facetious as your original post. ( should have put it in blue ;) )

However, to answer your question....

While I do not blindly endorse this philosophy, there are times when spirit and intent supercedes the written rule in a given situation.

Example(s) please.

+1

Final minute of 1st period. Score 14-14

A12 in control of the basketball just inside the center jump circle.

Team B, satisfied with their position after 7 minutes, settles into a 2-3 zone, allowing A12 to hold the ball.

Head Coach from A instructs A12 to "hold the ball until 8 seconds on the clock, then run Tennessee special."

A33, sets up on the left block right next to B25. Both understand this is a "free breather" and are both waiting for the clock to get to 8. In fact, both players are standing next to each other with hands on hips, talking to each other about how good a first period it has been.

Who's calling a 3 second violation here ? (9-7-2)

Not me.............

The "spirit of the rule" as defined by the guy who's making up his very own rule.

Oh my....

Just...oh my....

Prime example of "right call, wrong time."

Some "3-second" situations. Some "10-second to shoot a FT" situations. Note "some".

Right or wrong, imo it's almost universal that both of these are administered with some variance to the written rule. Until they changed the penalty for swinging an elbow, that one wasn't called by the book either.

Officiating basketball can be an art rather than a science some times. But those times don't include when to start a 10-second backcourt count.

Why not? How do you know B went into a zone because they were "satisfied", and not because they wanted to protect their bigs from picking up any dumb fouls? Do you know for sure B's coach wouldn't rather go into halftime with a lead, and you've just screwed them out of a violation and turnover? Why does does A33 get a break from you because they're dumb enough to stand in the lane, even you know that's not their "intent"?

I'm just spit ballin here. "Watch the lane fella's/ladies" might be a good way to go.

Might be.

But, just spit ballin' here - what if you already said that earlier in the quarter? Do you say it again? What if you say it and they're not paying attention because they're busy comparing stats with each other, or talking about who they're taking to the prom?

What's the signal for fraternizing? What's the penalty?

I don't think the NFHS has an official signal, so of couse it's our job to make one up. :)

As far as the penalty, I think it depends upon the ages of the fraternizers. :eek:

I just must have a voice that commands attention and adherence!! In your situation, i would have no problem reminding them about the lane again. If the player chooses to ignore it, I can't say I didn't try. And boy will that coach be upset with his player!!

If you have to say it again, then your voice isn't commanding obedience. :)

While I agree with an occasional reminder, I disagree with this. Why should they be reminded again? There is no provision in the rules for any type of warning on violations, although I agree is there is some precedence (or is it precedent?...well, crap, how about "there's people that have done it before?...) for doing it. But I've also been told that if you say it loud enough for others to hear, then it's time to call the violation. And I've certainly been told that if I have to say it more than once, then I should've called the violation instead of saying it a second time. Remember, this is still the 1st period, so not a lot of time has elapsed if you did say something earlier.

I just don't agree with not making a call simply because I'm trying to avoid taking grief for making it. Last minute of a 30-point game, I'm probably not looking for it. 1st period, or 1st half of a tie game, I would say every posession is still critical. I'm not bailing out a dumb player in that instance.

Hey - watch those travels, guys. Hey - watch those stepping out of bounds, guys. Hey - watch those punches in the mouth, guys. :o

Because I'm smart enough to know that none of these apply in this situation.

Change 1st period to 4th period and the score from 14-14 to 74-74.

I am not telling A's Head Coach that A33's heels were barely touching the lane boundary line.

OMG, you must have been at the AAU Tournament I was at last weekend!?!?! Were you the other guy wearing a black and white stripped shirt:eek: I was just commenting on the specific play as givien.

I will admit that I have been know from time to time to verbally warn a player in the post that it might be in their best interest to vacate the premises. Usually if a player is just ball watching or just hanging out, I will try to snap the player out of their daze. I just say "Lane" and that usually works. If that oratory gem doesn't do the trick, I make a high schrieking sound with a little plastic object I sometimes use. That often does the trick as well!!!
As an adendum, so SOME people don't jump to a negative conclusion, I am NOT a big fan of doing that when it comes to fouls. That is just to slippery a slope IMO.

Where did you mention in the original post that only A33's heels were on the line? :confused: The implication was A33 was in the lane, otherwise why would anyone call a 3-sec. violation?

If this is a game of "gotcha", I'm not playing. I took from your post that you would not make the call solely because both players are simply standing there, and A33 is not gaining a specific advantage because both teams "appear" to be content with running out the clock. If that wasn't your meaning, I'm sorry. If it was, then I still stand by my answer - we should still call the violation if it exists, in the 1st quarter or the 4th.

His shirt was stripped!?!?! :eek: You mean there was an official out there without a shirt on! Did the other official give him a technical?

Didn't I mention it was a tournament sponsored by Chip N Dales??! I worked their JV tournament known as the Chips A Hoy tournament:D

Word from on high...
 

Ran the original sitch by our State rules interpreter...

the tersely worded answer favored the 'spirited' approach.....

Have no response yet to my request for a rules cite...

Hoodathunk??

And I wouldn't be expecting one anytime soon. :rolleyes:

Time for you to have some fun, Justa.....:D

Iirc, the question was when to start a 10-second count when the ball goes into the backcourt after team control was obtained in the frontcourt, correct?

Ask your state rules interpreter if his personal definition of what the the "spirit and intent of a rule" is can supercede a definitive ruling issued by the NFHS rules committee.

From the 2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations as posted on the NFHS website:

SITUATION #8
A1 is dribbling in his/her frontcourt when B1 deflects the ball into A's backcourt. The ball is bouncing towards the endline in A's backcourt when A1 and B1 give chase. B1 & A1 each contact the ball, but neither gains control. Finally, after numerous attempts by each player, A1 gains possession deep in A1's backcourt. When does the 10-second count begin for team A?
RULING: <font color = red>The count starts as soon as the ball GOES INTO THE BACKCOURT since team control has not ended(4-12-3; 9-8)</font>.

Here's the link:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

Lah me......:rolleyes:

Kinda sad when a state rules interpreter issues a ruling that is completely contradictory to a definitive NFHS ruling.