|
|||
Advantage Disadvantage ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Mar 09, 2012 at 11:50am. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Still Waiting ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
NFHS Standard ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
Old School Doesn't Count ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Mar 09, 2012 at 02:44pm. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Thanks ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Mar 09, 2012 at 03:41pm. |
|
|||
Thanks ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Travel? | hoopsjw | Basketball | 7 | Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:33am |
Travel | kzreffin | Basketball | 9 | Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:00am |
Travel or not? | JB | Basketball | 11 | Tue Oct 31, 2006 02:49pm |
Not a travel--since when? | mplagrow | Basketball | 19 | Fri Feb 13, 2004 01:09pm |
No Travel, Just Kidding Travel Kas v Arz | fletch_irwin_m | Basketball | 49 | Tue Apr 08, 2003 06:23pm |