[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Rather than write out this treatise, you could have simply said, "Here's what I meant to say:" Then, you could have "melded the first and second sentences" of your penultimate paragraph. Would have saved you a lot of time.

OTOH, let's put them out here:

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

If the contact truly is beginning after the goal, that is, at minimum, a common player technical foul, 10-3-7, and possibly a flagrant player technical foul, 10-3-8. You have to decide if the push was the result of the offender simply being unaware that a goal had just been scored, in which case you could ignore it (but that is ignoring a foul, unless you deem it incidental contact), or you might loudly verbalize a warning and keep an eye on that player, or you might blow your whistle and simply warn (your primary responsibility IS safety, afterall), or you might decide that the ball was available and at the disposal of the offended player's team, that your five-second count had commenced and was currently at zero, and call a personal foul, as you have been doing.

Rather than debate this point by point (I've got some slothin to do today and don't have time), I'm just going to hi-light what's wrong and let you defend it or not. Your choice.

If, however, you make this decision for the sole purpose of allowing yourself to call a common foul, you've got integrity issues to worry about.

The problem is your second sentence is as full of wrong as your first. Even morre so, frankly.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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...blah blah blah

We didn't say anything casually, at least not when it comes to how to adjudicate this play. Just because we didn't provide the rule reference doesn't mean it's not there to find. If you can't find it, feel free to ask. Try doing it without getting preachy some time, you'll get better response.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

You really should be a bit more hesitant to disagree with his position on an actual rule. He simply said it's not relevant to the OP, and he's correct.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

No, it doesn't. It tells us to ignore the contact. Calling it "incidental" is misleading. You ignore the dead ball contact if it is not intentional or flagrant. It's that simple, and inserting terms like "incidental" into the equation is neither necessary or helpful.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

However, how often is a push on a rebound not intentional?

Really? The answer to this question is somewhere around 47 times out of 48. Or have you called quite a few rebound pushes in your 18 month career?

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Then you should be calling them. The fact is, I think your judgment should be questioned if you think these are intentional pushes and you see them often.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Just leave the term "intentional" out and you'd be just fine here.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.]

Wouldn't have made a difference, chief.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Your vast experience needs some tweeking here. Most times, on a rebounding push, we ignore it if the shot goes in. There's no real advantage as there's no rebound to be "stolen."

Now, if displacement is significant (measurable in yards rather than inches or even feet), we sometimes go get it anyway.

Of course, this is very much like the slap on the wrist as the dribbler drives around the defender. Saying "a foul is a foul" is a way of justifying a call that takes away a layup from a dribbler who did nothing wrong. It's typically a comment made by new refs, coaches, and fans.

Experienced officials want to see the whole play before making a call on this.