Charging vs. Player control

Adam

Hartsy wrote
Doesn't affect what I call at all. I was pointing out that incorrectly signaling a defensive "charge" with hand behind head signal could potentially confuse your partner, table crew, and/or coaches, let alone fans who are often confused anyhow.

And why would someone do that?

Hartsy

Snaqwells wrote
And why would someone do that?

I can't imagine anyone would, but part of the discussion was the defiition of "charging", which does not specify that only the dribbler can "charge". Many associate the hand behind head signal with a charge rather than player control. I was pointing out what confusion could ensue if the push signal was not used for a defensive charge.

Welpe

I think I'm confused now.

Adam

Hartsy wrote
I can't imagine anyone would, but part of the discussion was the defiition of "charging", which does not specify that only the dribbler can "charge". Many associate the hand behind head signal with a charge rather than player control. I was pointing out what confusion could ensue if the push signal was not used for a defensive charge.

Many what? No official I know uses that signal for anything except PC.

Hartsy

Snaqwells wrote
Many what? No official I know uses that signal for anything except PC.

It wasn't directed at officials. We all should know better. It was a theoretical after acknowledging that it isn't only a dribbler who can charge, given the rulebook definition of that term.

BktBallRef

Welpe wrote
I think I'm confused now.

I know. My head hurts now.

There's no reason to use a PC signal for a defensive charging call.

There's no reason for any official to equate charging as an offense only foul.

As for signals, pushing or charging, the signal is the same. Signal #33.

just another ref

Hartsy wrote
I can't imagine anyone would, but part of the discussion was the defiition of "charging", which does not specify that only the dribbler can "charge". Many associate the hand behind head signal with a charge rather than player control. I was pointing out what confusion could ensue if the push signal was not used for a defensive charge.

It would also be confusing if the travel signal was used when the ball went out of bounds.:rolleyes:

Maybe this helps. If one looks at the table of Official NFHS Signals, one will discover the signals for a push and a charge are.................the same signal.

just another ref

But what if one official signals a block and the other signals a player control foul, then what do we do?

BktBallRef

A hot mess.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
But what if one official signals a block and the other signals a player control foul, then what do we do?

BktBallRef wrote
A hot mess.

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Scuba_ref

Triple whistle for action at the freethrow line and halfway across the key - (not our finest example of 6 eyes on 10 players). Two fists and one open hand in the air - we all had something different. Can you guess what we went with? The winning call came out of the C position.

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Thought the main point in this thread was that a charge and a player control foul are not the same thing.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
Thought the main point in this thread was that a charge and a player control foul are not the same thing.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not.

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not.

Absolutely true. No one argues (do they) that the two are not necessarily the same.

So how do we possibly get from this

What if one official signals a block and the other signals a player control foul, then what do we do?

to this?

BillyMac wrote
4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

The question doesn't contain the word charge.
The case doesn't contain the words player control.

Let alone obligation based on signals which may or may not mean the same thing.

Welpe

This is like seeing magnesium being dumped in a swimming pool.

Adam

Welpe wrote
This is like seeing magnesium being dumped in a swimming pool.

For some

refiator

Hartsy wrote
using the hand behind the head associated with the commonly known charge.

Since the Team Control signal was implemented, I haven't seen that used in a while (at least in these parts).......Not taking away from its being an approved signal, just don't see it anymore.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
The case doesn't contain the words player control.

Because it's a double foul. If the other official didn't call a block, then it would have been a player control foul.

BillyMac

refiator wrote
Since the Team Control signal was implemented, I haven't seen that used in a while.

Many officials around here will use the team control foul signal, and only the team control foul signal, for a player control charging foul. By the manual, it's probably incorrect, but it seems to be an "accepted", but not "approved", alternative around here.

SNIPERBBB

refiator wrote
Since the Team Control signal was implemented, I haven't seen that used in a while (at least in these parts).......Not taking away from its being an approved signal, just don't see it anymore.

Player control and Team Control signals are the same behind-the-head signal in Ohio.

« Previous Page Next Page »