I'm not advocating that, but, when it happens, the players can adjust. I would rather see those 3 second violations called than see these travels not called.

Are You Sure ???
 

just another ref; If this is a rule ("by rule") then please show me where it states that "Violations, by rule, do not take advantage/disadvantage into account."

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.

Where does the NFHS say that advantage/disadvantage is to only to be utilized for fouls, and that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized for violations? The intent and purpose of the rules refers to "rules" and does not break it down into those rules involving fouls, and those rules involving violations. I will agree that advantage/disadvantage is usually applied to fouls, i.e inadvertent contact, however if we didn't use advantage/disadvantage for some violations, like three seconds, and ten seconds on free throws, then we'd be calling these violations a lot more than we actually do.

Advantage/Disadvantage as we typically use it is the method of determining incidental contact which is a factor in determining fouls, not violations (So 4-27 is your rule reference). Permitting a player to violate is practically the definition of allowing an advantage not intended by rule.

Rule 10 - Fouls ...
 

So, what advantage/disadvantage are they talking about in the "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES"? If they are referring to fouls, then shouldn't this section be in rule 10?

Once again, please show me something, in writing, from the NFHS, that states that advantage/disadvantage only refers so fouls. I will admit that I can't show you a statement that says that advantage/disadvantage refers to both fouls and violations, so you don't have to believe me, as I don't have to believe you. We should all believe thae NFHS, so let's see a NFHS citation.

Disagree, he gains space only because defenders stays put, he's set up regardless for triple threat if he doesn't travel. Not worth discussing because both agree it's a travel. But, I'll bet you a shiny new quarter official shares my thinking(a bet that will never be settled).

Let's Agree To Agree ...
 

Are we saying the same thing here?

Maybe. I think of violations in two categories: those with grace zones and those without. Those without grace zones are called immediately every time. Chief among these is out-of-bounds but also illegal dribbles and travelling (provided I'm certain travelling occurred), 5 and 10 seconds. Those with grace zones are 3 seconds and carrying etc.

I think this is fundamentally different than advantage/disadvantage though. I will call 3 seconds even if there is no apparent advantage to the offensive team, but I will likely give more than 3 seconds provided the offense isn't taken advantage of the violation.

So, you tell me: are we saying the same thing?

Never Say Never, Never Say Always ...
 

Sure sounds like it partner.

If half of a player's foot is in the lane on the weak side of the floor, would you *ever* blow the whistle?

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

Man. This was way too easy, and way too civil. A few years ago I debated this same topic with Jurassic Referee. The thread lasted a few days, with several posts by both of us, and one of us, guess who, would make posts that bordered on being ever so slightly impolite. I was able to eventually win him over, but only on ten second free throws, and three seconds in the lane. I never could get him to side with me on carrying the ball, which was fine with me because I at least got him to agree with me on the other two situations where advantage/disadvantage mattered on a violation. That was the only time, ever, that I was able to win a debate with Jurassic Referee, even if it was only a partial victory. Man. I really miss that old codger.

Regarding 3 seconds: I think many of us would say we avoid it if we can but what do we do instead of calling it? We tell the players to get out of the lane so they don't get to use the advantage. On the flip side, if they start having mail delivered to them in the lane we'll call it.

I sincerely doubt any of us tells a player "don't travel" or "keep your pivot foot."

"He's Camping In There" ...
 

I wait until they start a campfire.

Advantage/disadvantage is written into the definition of a foul.

".........illegal contact which hinders the opponent from performing normal offfensive or defensive maneuvers......"

(paraphrased from memory)

A lot of things, in practice, vary from the written rule.

A blarge must be called, because it's written, sorta.

A multiple foul should be avoided if at all possible, even though the rule and the case play are quite specific.

Violations, overall, do not consider advantage/disadvantage, and I can think of at least one example where this is specified, I think.

Wasn't there an NCAA case play about the thrower in stepping inbounds with and without pressure?

Ruling: violation in both

If a travel is to be called strictly by advantage/disadvantage, a player could simply put the ball under his arm and walk it up when there is no pressure.

What do you want him to say? It's obvious that the decisions are not correct. You know it, I know it, and he knows it.

So how does he respond to your email without appearing to support the guys working that D1 game? He really has to hedge his response and he did.

As Far As I Know, Rules Include Both Fouls and Violations ...
 

Agree 100%. I never said that advantage/disadvantage didn't apply to fouls.

Now please give me a citation that states that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

The opening statement of the rulebook talks about advantage/disadvantage, and never mentions fouls. Not even once. Look at it carefully. Read it carefully. Where is the word "foul" mentioned? This statement must be pretty important to be the first thing in the rulebook.