Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[Camron Rust]

#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

#3. Legal play

#4. FT violation. Shooter was running in before the ball got to the rim and actually got the rebound. Remember that she is in when the foot crosses the plane, not when it touches. After that, she traveled. Caught in the air, right foot, left foot, left foot, right foot....travel.

#5...the clock should have been reset to 11.5. They were shorted 3 seconds. Hard to say if it made a difference but it may have given the losing team time for 1-2 more passes and a chance at a better shot.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001173]#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense. Rock and hard place?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense.

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on?

My "phantom foul" is this game was no contact. That's why I passed on it. The defender missed the attempted hold by mere inches.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

[Blindolbat]

These are the very types of Intentional fouls that we all cringe at. But to me this is what the NFHS wants called as intentional. It's a breakaway that the defender has no chance to defend legally so they reach out and push/grab with no legitimate chance at the ball. I guess if she comes up from behind and blasts her into the wall then it makes our jobs a whole lot easier.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

This play does fit the automatics. It is done from behind. I think saying if it doesn't affect the player it's always incidental is wrong. 1. Because there is an effect that we might not see. 2. Suppose the player touches her,right left, right left all the way from half court. On purpose. Offense keeps dribbling. Isn't "preventing" anything...but it's a foul. I understand where you come from by what it says but just because it doesn't prevent ..doesn't make it all incidental.

Ex. You hold ball. I whack at ball and hit crap out of your wrist. You keep holding ball. You weren't going anywhere. Didn't cause you a "disadvantage" but that's a foul. If you only look at the sentence above it wouldn't be one. Can't read it in isolation. Imo.

[Adam]

It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.

And in your example, I'm not calling that either for precisely that reason. If it dislodges the ball, I'll call the foul. If it doesn't impact the ball handler in any noticeable way, then I've got nothing. Just like the 100 lb pg running into the 250 lb center and falling off: I'm not calling the PC foul there, it's incidental contact because the innocent party wasn't disadvantaged (or displaced) in any way.

Your #2 point gets called a hand check due to the changes made, which do not apply to a single touch. If they wanted this to apply to a single touch, they would have said so, but this play in no way resembles a hand-check.

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=ronny mulkey;1001253]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001267]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a

Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

That contact had no effect at all.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a


That contact had no effect at all.

On my phone I didn't think she touched her. On the big screen she reaches out and puts left hand on back and then right one on the hip. She's trying to get a foul call but not realizing she needs to make it look better. In girls 1Abasketball I think you have to call it and all your left with is intentional.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

On my phone I didn't think she touched her. On the big screen she reaches out and puts left hand on back and then right one on the hip. She's trying to get a foul call but not realizing she needs to make it look better. In girls 1Abasketball I think you have to call it and all your left with is intentional.

Why would I call this in a girls game and leave it alone elsewhere?

I've heard some girls games with INSANE numbers of fouls considering the quality of teams and the only reason I can think of is that the officials simply don't get advantage/disadvantage.

[Adam]

I didn't see anything that I would have wanted to call, even in a middle school girls game. She tried to foul her, but failed (IMO). Would I have actually blown my whistle in that situation if I had been on alert for a foul? Maybe, but I wouldn't have felt good about it.