First off, let me say that I should have melded the first and second sentences of my second-to-last paragraph into a coherent whole. It appears that a number of you focused on my first sentence, and ignored my second.
Secondly, you all sure seem to spend a lot of time arguing about what seems small to me, and not much time discussing what caused me to jump in on NFR’s post in the first place, namely, his apparent reliance on what others casually tell him rather than on a rigorous use of the books to advance himself, and the dilemma he describes surrounding pushing after a made goal. There I go preaching, again.
By the way, I'm just a second-year guy. I don't know jack--that's why I want citations from you guys (I was a varsity player, and have played recreationally for thirty years). I perused this forum when I started officiating 18 months ago, and decided it was more like a Facebook party than a serious officials' forum. I'm taking a second look. My preachiness is just my style. Believe me, I'm not arrogant or pompous, just dumb.
JR: In my use of “common”, I was casually making a distinction between penalties among the technical fouls in play with NFR’s play situations--uncommon ones being fighting/flagrant ones, because they include disqualification and are far less “commonly” called than intentionals. Scrapper and JAR got it, but I agree with you and Snaq, “common player technical” is not generally understood to make the distinction I was intending--thus the problem and confusion I generated. That was a useless distinction to try to make in the first place, perhaps. Your attempt to analogize my use of “common” in regard to a player technical foul with that of its use in a common foul “logically” entailing intentionality fails, however. Common foul is properly defined, 4-19-2. Common player technical foul has no proper definition.
I have no idea how YOU were defining “common” when you said that 4-19-1’s subnote precludes a “common player technical by rule” and leaves only intentional or flagrant ones to choose from. Given NFR’s play situations, which technicals are even in play other than intentional and flagrant ones, never mind which of them are you calling “common”? You say you were interpreting my use of “common” as “a run-of-the-mill technical foul”. What is a run-of-the-mill technical foul, or, more precisely, which ones are they? At least I included “player” technical foul, which narrowed it a bit, and I put it in the context of NFR’s play situations. Which technicals are you calling “common” that 4-19-1’s subnote precludes AND which are also not intentional or flagrant???
I disagree with your position on 10-3-8. NFR mentions no retaliation to any of the pushes, but 4-18 does not require retaliation in order for it to be fighting. 4-18 only requires that the act be judged combative. 4-18-1 and 2 are mere examples of the fighting 4-18 defines. 4-18 clearly states that articles 1 and 2 are not exhaustive. What’s combative is a judgment call, similar to what CB 10-3-6 advises in regard to a possible unsporting foul. I was trying to cover all of the possibilities NFR should consider, and “combative” is a definite possibility for a push that commences after a goal. I’ve seen it many times. I’m not going to wait for retaliation to rule it combative, and therefore fighting. I’d rather blow, and hopefully prevent the retaliation. Waiting for retaliation to call it fighting is absurd, particularly when you consider that if the initial act leads to retaliation (fighting), the initial push is then also deemed fighting, CB 4-18-2.
As for 4-19-1’s subnote, I view it as making explicit what is elsewhere in the book referred to as “incidental” contact, i.e., it provides us a specific example of incidental contact (4-27). Like I said in my response to NFR, though I did not say it eloquently, he can ignore the dead-ball pushing if he finds it to be incidental, such as if the offender did not realize the basket was made. 4-19-1’s subnote tells us to regard what would otherwise be a common foul as incidental. However, how often is a push on a rebound not intentional? How often is it not intentional when it doesn’t begin until after the goal? That’s the fine line NFR’s question raises, obviously. A late push like that is intentional virtually every time, in my experience. Do I call it often? Like APG, no, but I do what I have to to put a stop to it immediately. It all depends on my judgment of the players’ maturity, and their responsiveness to my commands. I don’t know where NFR is at in Oregon, but knowing metropolitan Oregon varsity teams from working their games at summer camps, what NFR is witnessing may just be what they in Oregon regard as “incidental”. Their coaches tell me, with varying regret, it’s “just part of the game” for them, which is a whole different subject, entirely.
Rich: I thought you made a great point about when the ball again becomes live, but when live, it’s just a question of standard live-ball judgment, isn’t it? No big dilemma, there.
The only thing I said about officials ignoring dead-ball contact is that it is acceptable, providing it is deemed incidental contact, meaning it is not deemed intentional or flagrant. Re-read what I said with all the relevant context this time. [Again, I should have blended my first two sentences together, and made my position more coherent.] The question at hand is what to do with the contact NFR is witnessing. We don’t know what it is. We can’t know the offenders’ states of mind, nor can NFR communicate to us every relevant detail such that we can accurately judge for ourselves. We have to consider all the possibilities in order to provide him with a comprehensive answer. You seem to argue as if I did not allow for the possible no-call if judged incidental, as though you read my first sentence, and my first sentence, only, of that particular paragraph. I clearly allowed for ignoring the contact. If you had criticized my poor writing skills, and said that I should have blended my first and second sentences together such that they worked as one, I would wholeheartedly have agreed with you.
Ignats: I assume by “airborn” you mean the ball is still live. Why would you tell yourself to ignore a push during a live ball? Isn’t that what “Points of Emphasis” #1 is all about? A foul is a foul, otherwise, the "game" slowly slips away from us all.