|
Sat Feb 01, 2003, 06:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
YU.P.
Quote:
|
|
Mon Feb 03, 2003, 03:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Violations included
The posted Tower Philosophy (by Barry Morris http://www.officialforum.com/thread/7276) makes no differentiation between fouls and violations. It uses the words "violate the Rules." It does, however, include an example of fouling and not one for violations....
I extend this philosophy to violations (traveling particularly). Don't misunderstand - I reward good defense. If the violation is caused by good defense, then we've got a whistle and a violation. I may not call traveling on the player that catches a pass beyond the three point line on his left foot and then pivots on his right. Do it under the basket and maybe you have created a distinct advantage => travel. Catch a pass 5 feet outside the 3-point line, forward with the left foot and then forward with the right foot to shoot a 3-pointer at the line => travel. Palm the ball to make a pass, defense cuts off the passing lane, dribble continues => carry. Defense has kept you in the backcourt for 10 seconds, ball is away being passed into frontcourt... good defense => violation; why should I give them another second to catch the pass? Yes, I definitely extend the philoshophy to violation of ANY of the rules - not just fouls.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Tue Feb 04, 2003, 01:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Although I can't find the original source, here is the wording of the Tower Philosophy, taken from an unsigned article on the IAABO Central Maine Chapter Web site. I am sure that a back issue of IAABO "Sportorials" has an article giving the history of the Tower Philosophy. Anyway, here it is:
A concept known as the "Tower Philosophy" sets the basis for using good judgment when officiating. In part the Tower Philosophy is as follows: " It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his/her opponent and a disadvantage. 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 the rules then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect on the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored, as it is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred." This provides all officials with a great foundation from which to build our own officiating style and philosophy.
|
|
Wed Feb 12, 2003, 01:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
-player stepping over end line on a throw-in when there's no pressure
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why would you not call this one? I call it, and seem to take no grief for it. I don't look for trouble on this one, but if the foot is clearly over the line, and the ball is in the hand, I call it. If the violation is not clear, I ignore it.
|
|
Wed Feb 12, 2003, 02:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Do you mean stepping "inbounds" instead of "over the line"? mick
|
|
Wed Feb 12, 2003, 02:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Score, time, situation. Mostly, I will call the violation. I have passed in the past. mick
|
|
Wed Feb 12, 2003, 03:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Point taken, late in a blowout, I would probably pass as well. I guess I was thinking about any competitive game.
In a blowout, I am looking to give a few extra possessions to the blowoutee, not take them away.
|
|
Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
When calling a game and player in back-court with no pressure steps on line to inbound the ball, I ignore it and pretend that I did not see it. I do not see it as gaining an advantage. I see it as letting the game flow. Thats how I interpret the Tower Philosopy.
|
|
Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
