Wichita State-Louisville block (Armstead 1st half)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

One of John Adam' absolutes for NCAA-M is that a foul should be called anytime a defender puts two hands on a ball handler. It is clear from the preliminary mechanic given that this is exactly why the official saw.

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

As far as Adam's is concerned, there is no room for advantage/disadvantage or judgement, hence the term absolute. In his eyes, every time the defender puts two hands on the ball handler it has to be a foul, no questions asked.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

As far as Adam's is concerned, there is no room for advantage/disadvantage or judgement, hence the term absolute.

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

As Camron indicates, this is the problem with absolutes. The absolute wasn't developed for this type of play. Even a delay of half a second would have allowed this play to finish without a whistle. If Adams wants this called, so be it, but I wouldn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

I honestly think the "absolute" part was to make officials get over the idea of just looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage standpoint. I also agree that there is some room for usage of advantage/disadvantage, it is just not and excuse to pass on obvious fouls. Also RSBQ is used in Adam's philosophy so that requires judgment to decide when those things take place.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I honestly think the "absolute" part was to make officials get over the idea of just looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage standpoint. I also agree that there is some room for usage of advantage/disadvantage, it is just not and excuse to pass on obvious fouls. Also RSBQ is used in Adam's philosophy so that requires judgment to decide when those things take place.

Peace

RSBQ is just another way of delineating exactly what "advantage" looks like.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

RSBQ is just another way of delineating exactly what "advantage" looks like.

I agree, but he used RSBQ with the "absolutes" portion of that presentation. At least it was used when it came to handchecking which is what "two hands" was considered under that philosophy.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, but he used RSBQ with the "absolutes" portion of that presentation. At least it was used when it came to handchecking which is what "two hands" was considered under that philosophy.

Peace

Fair enough. I get that handchecking has a much lower standard for determining advantage. It's harder to tell, so the threshold is lower; that makes sense to me.

The problem, though, with calling them absolutes, is the same problem we get with attempts at "zero tolerance" (regardless of what we are refusing to tolerate). Remove discretion, and you get all sorts of unfair decisions: like this call (IMO, of course).

[OKREF]

Just food for thought here. Does the defense even get two hands on the offense here? It is close, but it looks like they aren't on him at the same time. Hard to tell though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

As Camron indicates, this is the problem with absolutes. The absolute wasn't developed for this type of play. Even a delay of half a second would have allowed this play to finish without a whistle. If Adams wants this called, so be it, but I wouldn't.

It's the coaches who want 2 hands called every time. Adams is just telling us to enforce it like the rules committee wants it called.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

Cam - for conversation purposes only, I don't think we can be "intelligent", regarding absolutes. Whether you think there was any disadvantage put on the dribbler on that play, that is a whistle for "two hands", just like John Adams wants...now if you wanna debate if it is a continous motion play, I will agree it is.....