Advantage Disadvantage ...
 

Off the top of my head: Three seconds, and ten seconds (free throws). I have heard that others consider advantage/disadvantage when calling carrying, but I'm on the fence on that one.

How about you M&M Guy? Where's your line in the sand? How many ten second free throw violations have you called? Have you never passed on a three second violation? Ever?

I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

I'm still waiting.

What rule, casebook play, or interp can you cite that allows you to use A/D on *only* these violations? What about the rule that requires B to occupy the 1st spot along the lane during a FT? What possible advantage is there if B isn't there during the first of 2 FT's? Since you consider A/D on the 10-sec. count on FT's, do you do the same on the 10-sec. backcourt count? What's the difference?

The reason I'm asking you these questions, and not answering yours, is you seem to be most emphatic about your stance, even in the face of certain case plays that might suggest otherwise. The Comment in 9.2.5 Sit A seems especially telling: "Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call." Your stance seems to be based on something *not* being mentioned.

+1

Still Waiting ...
 

I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. In fact, as you have pointed out, there are a few case plays that seem to state that advantage/disadvantage is not to be utilized in these specific cases.

I just don't believe that the NFHS only wants fouls to come under the advantage/disadvantage principle. I have already pointed out some rules regarding equipment that certainly come under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

However, I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Let's go back to this:

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.

Why does the NFHS only use the term "rule" rather than "foul"?

Next move.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

C'mom. Please answer. Three seconds? Ten seconds? Let's hear how you interpret these violations. Maybe you'll prove your point, or, as I expect, maybe you'll give me a chance to ask a few followup questions. Don't be afraid. I don't bite, I don't call names, I don't use vulgar language, I try not to be offensive, and I'm polite to almost everybody on the Forum.

Try harder.

I'll try one more time, Billy. As cited earlier, a foul which doesn't hinder the opponent (create an advantage) is not a foul. A violation, by definition, is what it is. By local standards, or for whatever other reason, you may choose to ignore this violation under certain circumstances, but it is still a violation.

NFHS Standard ...
 

Agree. 100%.

This is not a local standard:

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.

Just explain why the word "foul" is not in here. That's all I ask.

I do not have any proof that violations can be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage. None. Period.

Why won't some admit the same thing in reverse, that they have no proof that the NFHS states that some violations (with many casebook exceptions) may not be interpreted under the guidelines of advantage/disadvantage.

The "Intent" statement is a very open ended statement. That's my point.

Still waiting for some ten second, and three second, interpretations.

Old School Doesn't Count ...
 

Give me one example, just one example, where I have disagreed with someone and posted something that was offensive? Where I have been purposely nasty to anybody? Where have I used vulgar language? Where have I called someone stupid, or an idiot, or any other name? Where have I been impolite to anyone? Give me an example where I have not been polite, or where I've been impatient. On the many, many occasions when I have been wrong, name me a time when I did not admit that I was wrong, and thank someone for straightening me out. When have I shown disrespect for anyone on this Forum?

You're move.

Still waiting for some ten second, and three second, interpretations.

Still waitng for someone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Still waitng for someone to cite anything that states that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Still waiting for someone to prove that the The "Intent" statement is not an open ended statement.

Step right up. Don't be bashful. I don't bite.

Billy - the difference between our arguments boils down to this: We've given you a specific case play that directly addresses our position, and you seem to want to find hidden meaning in the fact that a specific word wasn't used in a paragraph describing general principles. Isn't that a little like saying since no one has actually seen the fleet of black helicopters, that must mean they really exist? :)

Ok, now I'll give you my opinion on this topic. I don't think anyone here has advocated not calling 3 seconds. I believe Rich said it best - if you do make the call technically "by the book", it won't be your best call. That's because, in my opinion, if you are watching a player's feet that carefully and concentrating on counting, you have probably missed more important things like holding, a knee in the back, forearm push, elbow into the cutter, and many other issues. We have more important things to watch for first.

As far as 10 seconds on a FT, I don't remember ever calling it because I can't remember a player ever getting to 10. If I ever got to that point, I would call it, because the tape would show 10 flicks of the wrist. How could I justify *not* calling it at that point?

Going back to the video in the OP, my opinion is the reason the officials didn't call the travels is not due to A/D, but because they were concentrating on other things (defense, when was the ball gathered, etc.) and missed the call to the speed of the players. I still have yet to see any case play, memo, interp, or e-mail from a supervisor saying that plays that are "technically" a travel could be let go because there was no defensive pressure. I have, however, seen statements that say it is better to miss a possible travel if you're not 100% sure, rather than making an incorrect call.

Some may give A/D as a reason for not calling certain violations, but I don't think that's entriely correct. I can thing of other reasons why those calls would not be made.

Billy, I agree with you to an extent. Anyone who says they haven't overlooked a travel, 10-second B/C or free throw violation, or palming is being less than forthright.

However, I believe those violations being overlooked have more to do with game situations, as opposed to advantage/disadvantage. The thought process of determining whether or not certain contact is a foul has advantage/disadvantage built into the equation.

The only violation I see that gets advantage/disadvantage treatment is 3-seconds, but even then there comes a point where it can't be over-looked.

Thanks ...
 

The specific case play deals with a specific situation. I'm not 100% sure because I don't have my old rulebooks with me at work, but this case play has not always been in the casebook. I believe that it was a response to this play not being called a violation because many officials back then, if I can recall this properly, called it with advantage/disadvantage in mind, something that the NFHS must have decided was not they way that they wanted this specific play called.

You can expand this interpretation to all violations if you want to, and I can pretty much agree with you, but I just can't get past the way the "Intent" statement is written. It's just a mental block for me. I'm a chemist, actually an analytical chemist, and I often require more proof than most people require.

I can agree with you about "not entirely correct". I believe that there are very, very few violations, if any at all, that should be interpreted according to advantage/disadvantage.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Thanks ...
 

A good point to agree on. Thanks for your rational response.

I got one thing out of participating in this thread. Up until today I wasn't able to respond to those who said that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls. I found the equipment citation earlier in the thread, so at least that put one myth to rest. I wasn't able to convince others that some violations may be interpreted according to advantage/disadvantage, but I'm having trouble convincing myself.

Anything may be interpreted any number of ways, but, specifically, advantage/disadvantage with regard to violations has no rules backing.

With regard to your repeated reference to intent and purpose of the rules, the main thing I get from that is that a team/player is not allowed to commit a violation which gives his team a benefit which was not intended by that rule.

Best example was the player intentionally trying to miss a free throw and the defense commits violations trying to force a make.

Since you asked.

Offensive is probably too strong a word, but some of the off topic catch phrases, pictures, and other miscellaneous that you post make us clench our collective teeth.

jmo