Hard foul, intentional, flagrant ? (HS)
 

Hard foul ... and more?

First, let me say I'm not an official. I'm a coach of some three decades and I really enjoy the game management that officials provide. I seem to equally enjoy the conversations around rules, enforcement, and the myriad viewpoints of you guys running the floor. So thanks for this forum.

Should I ever be out of line, and I doubt that will be the case, please feel free to set me straight.

Here I'm posting a play from a recent HS BV game in Seattle. I realize the video makes it difficult to determine the nature or degree of the foul. But I'm wondering about the nuances differentiating a tough, hard-nosed foul from an intentional or flagrant.

Here the shooter is airborne but is the contact excessive merely because the shooter goes down hard? (19.3.d).

Embedding is your friend.
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ty-fpsae6E8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Can't tell from this angle. Looks like just a hard foul , unless #4 did something egregious on the back side this is common shooting foul.

Looks like a common foul. Red player went for the ball and it just turned into probably looking worse than it was

It was a hard foul, but it looked like to me just a normal shooting foul. Both tried to play the ball and one might have had a clean block. Just unfortunate how he fell but I would not call this anything but a shooting foul.

Peace

I think you mean shooting foul. A common foul by definition is not a shooting foul. Unless you think this foul is "on the floor". :D

To answer your question for this play, I would say "no" IMO. Many times a player's own speed/momentum causes them to be in a position where contact, whether all ball or anywhere on the body, results in the player having a hard/awkward landing. Now, by rule, if there is excessive contact with the opponent, you have an intentional foul. By case, you can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul. For your play, I would not argue with anyone who called this an intentional foul, even if only the ball was played.

Nothing here appears to warrant upgrading this to an intentional foul. Not to me, anyway.

Please, help me understand how one "can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul."
How does one "excessively contact the ball" and consequently be considered as having committed a foul against his/her opponent?
Basketball Rules Fundamentals 10. "Personal fouls always involve illegal contact . . ."
4-19-1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent.
You mention "by rule" and "by case." To which "case" are you referring?

NFHS Case 4.19.3 Sit B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds."
"RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11) "

"subsequent contact" - you cannot have a foul with contact only on the ball

"the subsequent contact" indicates that subsequent to the opponent getting a hand on the ball, (meaning that after B1 got a hand on the ball) there was contact by B1 with the person of A1, and that contact took A1 forcefully to the floor. The wording does not mean that B1 getting a hand on the ball is considered "contact." If B1's hand on the ball was considered to be the cause of the warranted foul, the word "subsequent" would not be used.
The intended understanding of this Case Book play is that the opponent "playing the ball" does not indemnify the opponent from responsibility for "subsequent contact with the ballhandler," even to the extent that excessive contact, after "playing the ball" may rise to the level of warranting an intentional foul being called.
Simply, and admittedly redundant as it may be, a hand on the ball is not "contact" for the purpose of judging whether a foul is to be assessed, regardless of the force applied by the opponent, to the ball. Only contact with the person of the opponent can be judged to warrant a foul being called.

The defender looked to be trying to make a play on the ball, and his follow through after missing the block hit the shooter, causing the shooter to land hard. The defender did not look to be trying to foul, nor do his actions indicate to me he was being overly forceful in taking the shooter down after contact.

Two shots

I could even see this being a held ball. Going to the AP.
Can't tell if there was body contact, there was no intentional or malicious foul that I could see.

It can't be a held ball -- the ball came out before the player returned to the floor.

Everybody here agrees that unless there's something that is not shown in the video, this is NOT an intentional foul -- so what did the officials on the court decide?

just a hard fall
 

This play is your garden variety "hard fall with contact" which was caused by the downward counter-force of the defender's blocked shot action on an airborne shooter. We see such defensive plays on a regular basis; I saw no rationale for upgrading to an IF. Also, now, in other instances there is a "hard fall" and no contact on airborne shooter is even made---I have seen this occur when shooters try to make fairly acrobatic moves in the air and fall down hard after the counter-force of the block--I had "nothing" in such cases--despite a body splayed on the floor.

It could if all the contact is with the ball and prevents a shooter from releasing the ball.

Peace

From this angle, I don't have anything more than a regular personal foul.

I agree. Rich i wasn't sure what you meant when you said it couldn't be a jump ball because the ball came out before he hit the floor. If it prevents the shooter from "throwing" the ball or "releasing it on a try" i think the rule says..its a held ball. Just because it came out here before the kid hit the floor doesn't prevent it from being a held ball...

Ugh.

Let me get this straight -- a shooter goes up, a player puts his hands on the ball, and the ball clearly comes out before the shooter returns to the floor. You're even considering a held ball in this scenario?

I would consider a held ball in this play. the fact that the ball came out eventually, just prior to kid hitting floor doesn't mean i won't consider it. once kid is in air I'm looking to see the contact with the ball, how long and the effect it has on the offensive player. The ball coming loose before a player hits the ground has never been a consideration for me. Now, if a kid can only jump 2 inches the contact and ball coming loose before he hits the ground is going to be quick and likely not a held ball. i'll make that judgment up top though not really based on when he hit the floor.

I like to think my whistle is patient enough that the ball would already be out....and then with a loose ball I'd lose interest in calling a held ball.

But YMMV.

Don't have my book here... but I'm 95% sure that by rule, your statement is incorrect.

What's the question? rule doesn't say anything about a player landing. it says held ball when opponent has hand on ball and prevents airborne player from "throwing" or "releasing it on a try." If that's what your saying is incorrect then i wouldn't bet on it if i were you.

If the defender here got all ball and stayed with it, turning player sideways by getting all ball and then the ball came out at the very end id certainly consider held ball. This player was certainly prevented from throwing the ball and/or releasing it on a try.

I might wait on the whistle but my point is that just because the ball comes out eventually just before this kid touches down doesn't mean it can't be a held ball.

If the ball is stopped from release at the top, yes. It would only not be if the ball is clearly knocked out of the hand.

Also there is a play in the Simplified and Illustrated Book. Also 4.25.2 clearly states what this is as well.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eF9FxTbxPZ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I know what the rules and case plays say -- I also know how this is typically called in practice. This discussion started with this video and someone saying that he'd consider a held ball.

All I was saying is that it's unlikely I'd even consider it if the player had the ball ripped loose or knocked out before he landed. Is this something that's based strictly in the rules or case plays? No, but it's something that I believe is true in practice. If a defender can rip it out before the offensive player lands, I'm likely rewarding that.

Sometimes contact can be upgraded based on the severity of the impact on an airborne shooter. If the defender had shown previous reckless behavior, I might. I doubt I would have upgraded this, but the risk is always there when you commit a hard foul on a shooter who is airborne.

If I have a "stuff" at the top and he starts coming down to the floor, I have a held ball. I do not care if the player comes to the floor and that is the suggestion by the rulebook, casebook and S&I book. It has always been that way to my understanding and even in some interpretations. So I do not see why I would wait until the player comes back to the floor if the shot is stopped in the air.

Peace

I think hoopologist has posed a very good question: is excessive contact based on how hard the player hits the floor or is it how hard the player gets hit?

I have to say I only commented because I've never heard "can't call a held ball if it comes loose before feet hit floor." I'm obviously not in your area but I've never heard or learned that it's a practice not to call held ball if it comes loose before offense hits ground. I look at contact, how long it lasts and the effect on offensive player. I don't ever consider feet. Now, as a practical matter, if your talking about a player with a two inch vertical...if the ball is ripped loose before he lands then the contact and length of it isn't likely going to be enough to be a held ball. Likely just a blocked shot.

Also creating a loose ball isn't particularly a benefit to the defender....unless his team recovers it. Calling the held ball gives it to his team or makes other team use and lose the arrow to keep it.

Each has to make his or her own decision but I don't consider whether feet have landed. It's all about what happens up top for me and the length of it...

For what it's worth, after a brief (2 minute) confab, the crew upgraded this to an IF. And, if I recall correctly, it was the Trail official who made the call. Perhaps he's assigned to do so or perhaps he took over the call. I do not know.

I will have to remember that the next time an offensive player uses the ball to push away a defender.

(bad example I know and I get your point, just couldn't resist.);)

Personal Foul ???
 

This has been an ongoing debate here on the Forum. I don't know if it's ever been fully resolved.

Hard Foul ...
 

It's close. Excessive contact? Maybe? It's close.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may
not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional
fouls include, but are not limited to:
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

NFHS Case 4.19.3 Sit B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds."
"RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11)

Note: Here in my little corner of Connecticut, if this is deemed to be an excessive contact intentional foul, we're allowed to use this signal (below) after the intentional foul signal, which I don't believe is approved by either the NFHS, or IAABO.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7756/1...cfc19d22_m.jpg

From this video it's no where near close Billy. At most he's trying to block a shot and catches wrist. Offense is in the air which is why he lands hard. Now if he hits wrist or all ball and follows through with body driving offense to floor you have something here.

If he pushes his legs sideways you have something here. Just not enough on this video.

In The Act ...
 

I watched the video a second time. This is a really nasty looking foul until you break it down. The first time through the video, I didn't realize that the contact was mostly up top, on the wrist, with little or no body contact. So I can go along with just two shots.

I think this may explain how the refs of the day got to intentional -- the hard landing made the contact look worse than it was. And they didn't see the play with a header that asks if it is hard foul, intentional, or flagrant. With that forewarning and looking for it, I thought it was pretty easy to say this was "just" a foul.

I think the NCAA and NFHS rules are different on this.

I don't have the time to research it.

Well great. I guess I'll look it up. I thought about it tonight and in this kind of game, not much above rim play, no leapers...I can see where it does make some sense. Contact and length of it likely not long enough on the avg turnaround jumper if ball comes out before hitting ground.

I just focus up top more. Foreign to me to do it.

Well, I'll be (how about u be instead) damned. The NCAAM rule does say prevent player from throwing or releasing on a try AND returning to floor with it etc.

I'll fine myself $20. Bucky, plz cover that for me.

Sigh. :(

I'll pay you back....Tuesday.

Ps. WE are lucky I didn't bet longhorn on the college version of the rule...:)

Same in NCAAW. Make the fine $40.

If you look at the contact by the trail defender I think it's a reasonable shooting foul. The defender under the basket (#4) is a bit trickier because you can't see how the contact is made on the offensive player.

If the foul was called on #4, then I could see how they might upgrade to an IF. He makes the contact up high on the arm, then takes the contact all the way through to the ground. He still has #11w's right arm held almost until both of his own hands have hit the ground.

Again, this is only going by the angle of this video, but I would guess the officials decided that #4 had continued contact and force all the way through to the ground.

If the foul was called on the trail defender, then I have no idea how to call it an IF.

Well, I should appeal the doubling of that fine....but I won't. Could have been much higher. I should have known that....:o

Sometimes after a discussion, the one with a more dominant personality just makes the call even if they all agree.