Isn't the Tower Philosophy (advantage-disadvantage) about contact between opponents on the floor? As I recall, it isn't about "no calls" in reference to lines, violations and other rules.

You are absolutely correct.

Correct. Violations should always be penalized,but personal fouls are a matter of opinion: hence the advantage/disadvantage philosophy.

Unless you are in a middle school game and want to be done in a decent time (less than four hours) :p

Yup,and then the philosophy got extended and expanded.Examples are someone stepping over the line on a throw-in when there's no pressure,3 seconds,10 seconds on a FT shooter,unofficial warnings for "delay of game" situations,huddling before a FT,etc.

Tower Philosophy
 

Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?

I do. Sure seems that way to me.
Z

Re: Tower Philosophy
 

eckert,
I dunno.
I never read the Tower Philosophy.
If you have read it, where may I find it?
mick

[email protected]

Re: Tower Philosophy
 

I say yes. I as an official and I suspect others use the term advantage/disadvantage (tower) pertaining to situations where descresion is used in making/not making a call whatever that may be (foul/violation etc). I believe the flow of the game and skill level TO A LIMITED POINT are factors in what is called out on the court.

Re: Tower Philosophy
 

No, I do not agree with that assertion. If something is obvious, it needs to be called. Many times people call violations that everyone does not see or even understand. I do not think it is always about advantage/disadvantage, but to some they might precieve it that way. I think violations have be called when they are obvious, not when there is necessarily an advantage gained. Fouls have to be looked at differently, mainly because we are talking about contact. If we call all contact as fouls without considering the advantage or disadvantage of a play, we might be calling fouls all night and the game will never get a flow. Fans come to see the players play, not officials call fouls all day.

Peace

Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Just to set the record straight,all I am saying is that a lot of officials ARE currently using the Tower Philosophy with regards to violations.They look to make a lot of,if not most,violation calls by advantage/disadvantage.If you disagree with that,you are saying that officials aren't using it and are going strictly by the book when it comes to calling violations-i.e.if a offensive player has a toe on a lane line,they're gonna call 3 seconds as soon as they do get to three(without any warning).

I haven't commented yet on how I call it personally.

I believe that this was a thread that Tim C. was thinking of posting the other day.Tee,that right?

Just a different point of view.
 

JR, you are missing the point.

I do not agree that you should use the Tower Principle for violations. I think you should call the obvious fouls and violations, not just the ones that you are the only one in the gym can see. Maybe doing that, there is going to be advantage, but I think you do not call a travel unless it is really there. Do not call what "looked like" a travel. Just another way to look at it. I am not saying your are wrong, just do not agree with that philosophy personally. ;)

Peace

Re: Just a different point of view.
 

Rut,
JR was asking for an observation. He wasn't judging right, wrong or indifferent.

He specifically said. "I haven't commented yet on how I call it personally."

So it's tough to disagree with a question.

mick

I need to make myself clear.
 

Mick,

I am not really disagreeing with JR, I am disagreeing with the philosophy itself for violations. I think it does not fit the same for violations, they way it does for fouls.

Sorry if I did not make that clearer.

Peace

Re: I need to make myself clear.
 

Rut,
No, praw. I sorta figgered you weren't disagreeing, but rather than guess, I thought I'd ask.

I have a feeling for the "Tower Philosophy", but what the heck is it? I've never read it. I believe it exists, but what the Hey?

Is it written?
Is it word-of-mouth?
Is it one statement?
Is it a guess?
Is it a wish?

mick

Re: Tower Philosophy
 

I do it.

Example: B scores, then drops back to A's frontcourt. A1 passes the ball in to A2 at about the FT line. A2 catches the ball, facing B's basket with his/her right foot on the floor. Then, all in one move puts left foot down, lifts right foot, pivots on left foot (to face about the sideline), pushes ball to floor to start dribble up court.

Technically: Travel.

Called: Almost never.

Now, if A2 pivoted completely arouond and put the right foot back on the floor, it's called. Or, if the same move was at the other end, and A2 used it to drive to the basket, it's called.

Mick (and others who've never seen it),

I've got a copy at home of the Tower philosophy that I received at a clinic a few years ago. I'll dig it up tonight and post it on the Board this weekend.

Way cool !
 

Thanks, Barry.
I look forward to it.

Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Bob,

I agree with you that is is almost never called, but would take issue as to why. Most officials or at least many officials, do not know a travel when they see them. I see many players attempt a jump stop and it is either called or not called properly because they do not see it, or understand what took place in relation to the rules. I have seen the more athletic teams in our state, do a legal jump stop and the official will call a travel when both their feet hit the floor. I have seen even when a player completes a jumpstop, and when that player pivots one of his feet, the officials call nothing. Now I agree that you should not call a violation if you are not 100% sure it took place (palming for example), but the reality is that many officials do not know a travel when it happens. Especially if an official is not used to seeing a Class AA team that is very athletic and plays the game above the rim. It was an adjustment for me, who started out with mostly Class A teams I had officiated, I know I am not the only one.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Rut,
That could quite possibly be legal.
You can always lift your pivot foot to shoot or pass. Also, if you ended the dribble in the air or caught the ball in the air before you came down on two feet simultaneously, either foot could be the pivot.

Z

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Rut said he pivoted after a jump stop.
Yer totally changin' the action described. ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Not changin'... just clarifyin'. If after a jump stop, the player pivots, it's OK so long as he doesn't put the pivot foot back down. By definition, I suppose it isn't a pivot unless the pivot foot <b> does </b> come down so I guess I should say, "if after a jump stop, the player lifts...."

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jan 31st, 2003 at 12:59 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

Z is correct. The player may lift the foot and pass or shoot before returning the lifted foot to the floor. The player may also jum off of the one foot still on the ground. Only when the lifted foot returns to the floor w/ the ball in that players posession do we have a travel.

Back on line,the real question is "if you KNOW that something is definitely a violation,do you still call that violation using advantage/disadvantage?".
Some examples:
-3 seconds-player at top of key with one foot on a lane line
-player stepping over end line on a throw-in when there's no pressure
-10 seconds on FT shooter
-5 seconds when defender is exactly 6 feet away from dribbler and not applying pressure
-10 second call when ball is passed over the center line in the air,but hasn't been touched yet.
-etc.,etc

Hmmm, I forgot about the post
 

An excellent example of advantage/disadvantage is "never" (there is that word again) call 3 seconds on a player "leaving" the lane area.

It is a "technically" a violation of the rule but if you call it you will not advance.

A common sense approach to officiating can go a real long ways.

I'm not sure anyone can honestly say they have never used the Tower phil. on violations...a perfect examle from my game last night - Visitor's losing by 20 plus in second half, and visitor point guard obviously palms/carries the ball in her backcourt - didn't call it...same game, same score range - V center camped in key for about 6 seconds - I step toward her and tell her to get out...that is Tower's thinking at work...we all do that at one time or another...

I'm w/ JR, rocky, and T. You have to use dicression on some violations such as those JR listed above. IMO look at intent. If the player is attempting to clear the lane but is in there for 3.2 secs do we have a call?? You can see the examples coming... Keep the flow of the game going call the violation depending upon the skill level, intent, advantage/disadvantage created, and the score and time remaining in the game. I am not saying that we should ignore gross and obvious violations but use extreme discression in what we do and do not call in some of these situations. The but coach a violation is a violation is a foul is a foul philosophy in one light is the fact that I have the rule book nailed shut in my head but to the coach can come off as a whistle happy official who has no "feel" for the flow of a basketball game and therefor not a very good oficial. It is a fine line we walk in-deed.

Girls varsity game the other night. Player A1 palms the ball every time she dribbled. If she was bringing it out of backcourt with no pressure, we ignored it. As soon as she used it to get around a player, we called it. Amazingly, neither coach had a problem with it being called that way.

Z

Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

eckert,
I dunno.
I never read the Tower Philosophy.
If you have read it, where may I find it?
mick

[email protected] [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know that the Tower philosphy was ever written. It comes from Oswald Tower who was a member of the basketball National Rules Committee. I am not sure if their is written documentation of the philosophy. Others may know.

I do have a book by Clegg and Thompson called Modern Sports officiating which mentions the philosphy. It affirms the fact that it is not related to violations or out of bounds.
However, each situation is different (game level, score...)

Re: Re: Re: Tower Philosophy
 

It affirms the fact that it is not related to violations or out of bounds.
However, each situation is different (game level, score...) [/B][/QUOTE]Aha! Good last sentence to think about!

YU.P.
 

After having read Barry's post, I can say that yes, I do so subscribe to the Tower Philosophy with regard to violations.

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.

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.

-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.

Tee,
Do you mean stepping "inbounds" instead of "over the line"?
mick

I quoted his words, but yes, I mean stepping inbounds so as to constitute a volation- how can we ignore that?

Tee,
<b><font color = Green> <u>Score, time, situation</b></u></font>.
Mostly, I will call the violation.
I have passed in the past.
mick

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.

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.

No need to ignore it,Nick. Stepping on the line while making a throw-in is legal,and always has been.The line is OOB.Stepping onto the court is a violation.