Fun With A Pass And Crash …

BillyMac

todd66 wrote
team control foul. There is no player control during a pass (NFHS 4-12-2b)

Not a choice, no "team control foul" bubble to fill in on the slightly confusing IAABO multiple choice answer sheet, but I fully agree with you. Nice citation to piggy back with 4-12-1 (from a negative prospective).

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
If one believed that this was a player control foul then one could have answered either player control foul, or charge.

Good citation if you are teaching test taking skills.

But since 17% of IAABO officials will think this *is* a PC foul despite the pass, it needs to be a choice.

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
Good citation if you are teaching test taking skills. But since 17% of IAABO officials will think this is a PC foul despite the pass, it needs to be a choice.

Every year that I taught I gave a lesson on how to make educated guesses when one didn't actually know the correct answer on my multiple choice and matching science unit tests questions. One suggestion was to ask oneself, "Why shouldn't I answer with this choice?", thus narrowing down one's choices (guesses), thus improving one's chances of a correct guess. If the test is asking for name of a scientist, be sure to answer with a name, not something else, like "stalagmite". I wanted my students to learn that there were "bad wrong answers" and "good wrong answers". It's science, a scientific hypothesis is no more than an educated guess.

BillyMac wrote
A few early returns from IAABO members who have already commented show that a few are confused by this principle.

Let's see if the 17% prediction holds up. I hope that 17% is too high (I'm a rose colored glasses kind of guy), but it might be a good over/under.

Raymond

Based on this camera angle, I can't tell if the defender's last movement was legal.

I do know that was terrible court coverage. Lead needed to pinch the paint and rotate. Center takes himself out of the play.

Because of the terrible mechanics, we don't know if they passed because of their judgment or passed because they really couldn't see the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
Based on this camera angle, I can't tell if the defender's last movement was legal.

Are you saying that White #1 took away airborne Blue #10's landing spot?

If so, you are correct about the camera angle, we can't see if Blue #10 is actually still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hits the floor before the contact.

However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hit the floor before the contact, and I don't need a better camera angle (although a different angle is always nice to have).

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
...

However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact....

So a defender can move any way he wants to AFTER A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal BEFORE A1 became airborne? 😕

But again, the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
... my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne ...

Raymond wrote
So a defender can move any way he wants to after A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal before A1 became airborne?

Great point, that I believed that I had already answered, but without specifics. By maintaining legal guard position I meant that the defender didn't move toward the airborne ball handler.

Raymond wrote
... the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

I appreciate your comments regarding the mechanics of the play.

Raymond wrote
I do know that was terrible court coverage. Lead needed to pinch the paint and rotate. Center takes himself out of the play

With only two real three person games in forty years under my black belt, I wasn't about to offer an opinion on the mechanics as requested by IAABO.

Camron Rust

Raymond wrote
So a defender can move any way he wants to AFTER A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal BEFORE A1 became airborne? 😕

But again, the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

Not any way, but several ways.

Nothing in the rules says that the defender has to be stationary, even for an airborne opponent. The rules only require that the defender be in the path. If the defender was in the path when A1 became airborne, any subsequent lateral movement or movement backwards doesn't change that. That is just a position adjustment.

There is no change in the ruling if the defender moves from a position that would have lead to contact 3" left of the center of his/her torso to a position with contact 3" right of the center of his/her torso. If the defender was in position to take the charge before the opponent jump, small movements don't usually change that.

The defender can't, however, move toward the opponent into contact as that negates LGP.

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
Great point, that I believed that I had already answered, but without specifics. By maintaining legal guard position I meant that the defender didn't move toward the airborne ball handler.

....

Words matter 😉

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
Words matter

Agree. Yes they do. I thought that "obtained and maintained" covered it.

While not incorrect, it was, perhaps, too general a statement, one that needed further explanation, and I was happy to oblige for the greater good of the cause.

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
Agree. Yes they do. I thought that "obtained and maintained" covered it.

While not incorrect, it was, perhaps, too general a statement, one that needed further explanation, and I was happy to oblige for the greater good of the cause.

You used "obtained and maintained" specifically in regards to what happened before A1 went airborne and then used words like "it doesn't matter" in regards to what happens before the contact.

"However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact...."

Me, if I'm training someone, I say defender "obtained" LGP BEFORE A1 went airborne and MAINTAINED LGP while A1 was airborne and until contact.

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
I say defender "obtained" LGP before A1 went airborne and maintained LGP while A1 was airborne and until contact.

And you would be saying it correctly.

My initial answer was unclear.

While I knew what I meant, I didn't write what I meant.

Haste makes waste.

Thanks for the correction/clarification, for me, and for the greater good of the Forum cause.

BillyMac

Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refquest-pro-dev-processed-videos/vUiWbAnPyBpIUDY2VYp9/bEY2fav3GwFoYIWi6FUs/bEY2fav3GwFoYIWi6FUs.mp4?GoogleAccessId=firebase-adminsdk-0yzpe%40refquest-pro-dev.iam.gserviceaccount.com&Expires=16447017600&Signature=BI67x4FBTBC136m2wSA8tNuKSF%2FcJ3%2BW23p4JWAa%2BAx0CgeBF5DVJ2xDDKNbzFbpjmwBRew54od89G6oAZpt2WK1KS%2ByPCTjgQcdLojLjnlmXSyrLRy3PdFfuNfv2inOllkdY2Xn%2FMgtdvEFfyBO3W2V3E01jYrwBUflLhg%2Bn%2FTaDakznjBsLSQq7LDihQWn72drMcd8LPFF4E3oEa0mgUKRQzgBDpYMC%2FXMtdtmSEkovX1EXjAfzGMqpqlC%2BWpaCMArOT0L8TYViiYgBB7IQGuoNuvChbnbkcduYDc6iXkrHiMTSCE5mpzfjKOCRf37a26erA%2FyC8XcItFWO0M%2F5w%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a Charge.

Blue #10 drives into the lane and jumps to pass the ball to a teammate in the lane. The defender obtains a legal guarding position (2 feet on the floor, facing the opponent) before Blue #10 became airborne. (4-23-5d) Since the defender obtained a legal guarding position, Blue #10 is responsible for the contact. In NFHS rules, this would be a team control foul. (4-19-7)

A high percentage of respondents ruled this play to be a player control foul. A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter. (4-19-6) Even though the administration of the penalties is the same as the team control foul, it is not accurate to refer to this as a player control foul. Blue #10 no longer had control of the ball once he released the ball on the pass. (4-12-1, 4-12-2b) Had Blue #10 released the ball on a try for goal instead of a pass and then charged, a player control foul would have been committed by rule.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a Charge 41% (including me). This is Player Control foul 39%. This is incidental contact (NCC - No Call Correct) 13%. This is a Blocking foul 5%. This is a Flop 2%.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
Maybe IAABO wants to highlight that while all player control fouls are team control fouls the reverse is not always true (all team control fouls are not always player control fouls). A few early returns from IAABO members who have already commented show that a few are confused by this principle.

bob jenkins wrote
... 17% of IAABO officials will think this is a PC foul despite the pass ...

BillyMac wrote
Let's see if the 17% prediction holds up. I hope that 17% is too high (I'm a rose colored glasses kind of guy), but it might be a good over/under.

BillyMac wrote
Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: ... This is Player Control foul 39% ...

Wow! Who bet the over?

BillyMac

Since the administration of the penalties is the same for both team control fouls and player control fouls, in the heat of a real game, it's nothing more than a minor faux pas for an official to give the wrong signal, or the wrong verbal description.

But this isn't in the heat of a real game, it's a video situation that can be played and replayed, and where multiple choice answers point to a differentiation of the two type of fouls, and I am very disappointing in the survey results.

Any official that gets this wrong can still be a great official, a great partner, well respected by assigners, colleagues, coaches, and players, but seeing such poor survey results still leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "What going on?".

JRutledge

For the record, at the NCAA Men's level and under the CCA Mechanics, the signal for TC and PC fouls are exactly the same. It is the hand behind the head no matter what kind of foul you are calling. Terminology is different, but it must be noted that the officials are not supposed to just point as in the past.

Peace

BillyMac

... a candy mint and a breath mint.

JRutledge wrote
For the record, at the NCAA Men's level and under the CCA Mechanics, the signal for TC and PC fouls are exactly the same. It is the hand behind the head no matter what kind of foul you are calling.

I believe tht the NFHS Rules Committee had a suggestion on the table to have one signal for both, but it was the "punch" signal.

We'll find out in a few weeks if the suggestion was approved.

BillyMac wrote
Do you know what changes are on the agenda at the NFHS Rule Committee?

Camron Rust wrote
Eliminate player control signal...use only team control signal

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
We'll find out in a few weeks if the suggestion was approved.

Last year's 2020-21 high school basketball rule changes were announced by the NFHS on May 11, 2020.

Can you feel the anticipation in the air?

JRutledge

Here is the CCA Manual change that took place this year.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
Here is the CCA Manual change that took place this year.

Thanks JRutledge.

Because of confusion with the “count the basket” signal the fist punch signal has been eliminated.

I'm pretty sure that the NCAA/CCA didn't just come up with this change Willy-nilly in an unplanned, haphazard fashion, and based it on some rational thought.

So why did the NFHS ignore this careful and thoughtful NCAA/CCA decision and decide to explore the possibility of doing just the opposite (fist punch)?