The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 29, 2003, 06:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 29, 2003, 08:18pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally posted by eckert
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 29, 2003, 10:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 272
Send a message via AIM to firedoc
Correct. Violations should always be penalized,but personal fouls are a matter of opinion: hence the advantage/disadvantage philosophy.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 07:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 426
Send a message via AIM to dhodges007 Send a message via Yahoo to dhodges007
Quote:
Originally posted by firedoc
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)
__________________
~Hodges

My two sense!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 10:18am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by firedoc
Correct. Violations should always be penalized,but personal fouls are a matter of opinion: hence the advantage/disadvantage philosophy.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 01:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Tower Philosophy

Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 01:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
I do. Sure seems that way to me.
Z
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 01:57pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Re: Tower Philosophy

Quote:
Originally posted by eckert
Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?
eckert,
I dunno.
I never read the Tower Philosophy.
If you have read it, where may I find it?
mick

[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 292
Re: Tower Philosophy

Quote:
Originally posted by eckert
Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 04:11pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Thumbs down Re: Tower Philosophy

Quote:
Originally posted by eckert
Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 05:56pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Re: Re: Tower Philosophy

Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Quote:
Originally posted by eckert
Does everyone else agree with Jurassic that the Tower Philosophy has been extended to lines and violations?
No, I do not agree with that assertion. If something is obvious, it needs to be called.
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?

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 11:17pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Lightbulb 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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 11:43pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Re: Just a different point of view.

Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
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
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
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 11:47pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Lightbulb 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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 30, 2003, 11:55pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Re: I need to make myself clear.

Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
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
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1