What's your philosophy on a push from behind on an airborne(layup) shooter?

[Dad]

I've never had an issue making the call, but went to go help out at a camp since we had a few 1st year officials going. A1 went for a layup and B1 pushed her in the back. First year official came up with an intentional foul and one of the partners on the floor said no that's wrong just go with a regular foul. I was talking with the two clinicians on the game who were both good, one was D1 and the other a primarily D2 guy. One said call it since by book it has to be intentional and the other said the player never really pushed and just put her hands there so go with a foul.

In short, I know how I would call it, but the 1st years were confused on what to do with the play. Mainly just looking for people's thought process on this sort of play where there is a borderline intentional foul. If you don't think it's borderline that's fine. Just don't answer with something like, "Go with your judgement."

[rbruno]

Intentional personal foul everytime. Maybe flagrant if malicious etc. Two shots and ball at endline NFHS.
If they are younger kids like 5th or 6th grade I will stress to the coach to teach them that this is a very dangerous play and that the shooter can be seriously hurt. Young kids don't understand this and think they are just preventing a layup.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by rbruno

Intentional personal foul everytime. Maybe flagrant if malicious etc. Two shots and ball at endline NFHS.
If they are younger kids like 5th or 6th grade I will stress to the coach to teach them that this is a very dangerous play and that the shooter can be seriously hurt. Young kids don't understand this and think they are just preventing a layup.

It was a girls 4a varsity game. At least the players I recognized were 4a. Thanks for the input though, appreciate it.

[Scratch85]

Just a foul.

[Nevadaref]

Are we talking a shove directly in the back with no attempt to make a play on the ball? If so, that's an intentional personal foul. It's straight out of the rules book.

If the defender is trying to block the shot or actually play defense and just happens to foul from behind, then a regular personal foul should be assessed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are we talking a shove directly in the back with no attempt to make a play on the ball? If so, that's an intentional personal foul. It's straight out of the rules book.

If the defender is trying to block the shot or actually play defense and just happens to foul from behind, then a regular personal foul should be assessed.

I could not have said any better what Nevada just said.

MTD, Sr.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are we talking a shove directly in the back with no attempt to make a play on the ball? If so, that's an intentional personal foul. It's straight out of the rules book.

If the defender is trying to block the shot or actually play defense and just happens to foul from behind, then a regular personal foul should be assessed.

It is, but there's still always a debate when the push didn't cause much movement or the player to miss the shot.

Well said though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

It is, but there's still always a debate when the push didn't cause much movement or the player to miss the shot.

Well said though.

On an intentional foul, this isn't required.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

On an intentional foul, this isn't required.

I know, but there's still debate over it. I work for five assigners during the season and I know they don't all see eye to eye on this sort of play. Note, this hasn't ever changed how I call the play.

I'm just not very good at putting words together when new officials ask about this play. Even though in my head it seem relatively easy to understand.

[BlueDevilRef]

I think Nevada said it best and you should steal his verbal eloquence. Tell the new guys : by rule, if there is no attempt to play the ball, it's IF.

[jamesshank]

Originally Posted by Dad

I've never had an issue making the call, but went to go help out at a camp since we had a few 1st year officials going. A1 went for a layup and B1 pushed her in the back. First year official came up with an intentional foul and one of the partners on the floor said no that's wrong just go with a regular foul. I was talking with the two clinicians on the game who were both good, one was D1 and the other a primarily D2 guy. One said call it since by book it has to be intentional and the other said the player never really pushed and just put her hands there so go with a foul.

In short, I know how I would call it, but the 1st years were confused on what to do with the play. Mainly just looking for people's thought process on this sort of play where there is a borderline intentional foul. If you don't think it's borderline that's fine. Just don't answer with something like, "Go with your judgement."

IMHO Intentional foul regardless of severity...preventive officiating fit a retaliation later

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[jamesshank]

Originally Posted by jamesshank

IMHO Intentional foul regardless of severity...preventive officiating fit a retaliation later

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

For, not fit...Sorry

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Contact in the back could range from no call to flagrant IMO. Depending on the severity and intention of the defender.

I have 1 flagrant in my career (knock on wood) and it was on such a play. If I see arm extension in the back of the shooter it's usually an intentional.