Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)
 

Play #1: Loose ball and continuation play (Original play in thread)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u9yeNe-ki7o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tX3GO1LG_5g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #3 & 4:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tK3S79WhQS4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Easy Play To Call ...
 

#1 Of course it's a foul. Red 10, attempting a steal, trips (blocking foul) White 20, and Red 10 ends up scoring off the subsequent play. I always try to separate the act of tripping (stumbling over a fallen branch on a trail hike) from the act of being tripped (overt act by a player). White 10 is tripped by Red 10.

It may not even be a loose ball (not that it matters in NFHS play), White 10 appears to still have the ball in her possession when Red 10 makes illegal contact.

Yea, seems like obvious foul.

Foul on R10 was the first thing that went through my mind.

MTD, Sr.

1. Foul on red.

2. Intentional

3a. No travel.
3b. Couldn't tell

Bob, would you be so kind as to elaborate on #2? I see her barely make contact, which has no affect. Thanks.

When You Hear Hoofbeats, Don’t Think Zebras ...
 

If the "barely" contact is grabbing at the opponent's jersey, that's not a basketball play, and thus the intentional foul. My question, did the defender actually make contact with the jersey, or did she swipe and miss?

I don't like to use the term "automatic", but when I see a jersey grab, a push from behind, or a bear hug, when the situation dictates the clock being stopped, or an easy basket being prevented, I'm, at least, thinking about the possibility of an intentional foul.

2. If anything, intentional. I feel that it did have an effect.

3a. No travel.

3b. If initial control on rebound, then travel. If not, then no travel. (one could call violation on shooter for breaking FT line plane before ball hit rim, especially when that player gets the rebound.)

1. Yes. White was taken out, and not by her own doing.

2. Seems that the anticipation was that there'd be more contact than there was and our striped brother had to live with his whistle. Understandable how it happened, but not desirable. Reminds a bit of one of those "illegal," lunging back picks that draws no contact.

Upon second re-review blown up, the first (left-hand) swipe grazes the back of the jersey. A bit of an overhand motion, it could deserves the IF (though it's still so slight - see paragraph above) and must be what he whistled. The second (right-hand swipe) is likely what the defender wants to use as justification as "going after the ball," woefully distant and short as it was. Woefully.

3a. No travel

3b. Tough to see among the clutter, but it looks like lead could have seen a bunny step or two at the end (surmised only from final view). Upon second reviewing, give that L a hand: no question a travel.

And she violated at the FT line too.

Clock issues and concerns:

Apparently this was made an issue by someone in the media. It was covered in another article about the game. I wonder what everyone here thinks of this breakdown of the events. I did not notice this when I watched the game.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l1lTT4RKqD4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

On play 3b, I don't think a FT violation by the shooter is nearly as obvious as some of you do.

Is she a nanosecond early? Yes. Does her being in the lane and getting the rebound of a quick brick make it look worse? Yes. But that's a tough hair to split in the final seconds of a state final (or whatever this is).

She waits out 98 percent of the flight before the ball hits the rim, and if I'm the C, I'm frying bigger fish by that point.

Being on this floor is considered the "State Finals" no matter what games you work. For the record there are 4 games each day (Friday and Saturday). Semifinals are on Friday and the Title games and 3rd place games. There are 12 officials assigned for the weekend and each official works a game each day. Officials assigned are considered "State Final Officials" in the record book regardless of if you work a title game or not that year.

This game was the 1A Title game for girls in a 4 class system. Also 1A-2A plays one weekend and the 3A-4A plays the following weekend. Each gender has their own weekend and officials do not work a lot of both genders in the playoffs in total, but there are exceptions if the schedule allows them to work both.

Peace

Play 1- Falls under Call The Obvious.

Play 2-Rules justification for intentional, sure. And the official obviously has a better look live than I do on my cpu. But I'd go common with that minimal contact/grab.

Play 3- I don't see clear travels on either play and am passing on both. Also passing on the potential FT violation. All marginal.

Easy to say from my couch but I don't like the sequence on just the videos here. Missed the obvious and then marginal, IMO, intentional and travel call wiping a bucket.

And the clock did seem to run some over 2 seconds after the whistle for the travel if the video is accurate.

#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.

[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.

Intentional Foul ...
 

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?

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.

[QUOTE=ronny mulkey;1001253]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.

No Contact ...
 

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.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001267]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
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.

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.

You don't know what effect the left and then the right hand had on offense. She does go on to brick the layup. The defender is trying to foul, left hand then right hand. Again, no legitimate reason for hands to be there. There placed there...on purpose...on a ballhandler..In a 4A boys game I'd expect him to play through it better. 1A girls obviously less strong etc. and as someone else said, she's trying to foul , not once but twice. If not called the third one will be clear. I'd have to see the contact in a higher level boys game. If it was like this contact I'd pass on it. Different skill level.

Neither does tugging on a jersey but the intent is clear. Again, give them what they want so that they don't have to foul someone harder. That is frustrating to both players.

The reason she's not doing more is cause she can't reach her.

I'd like to think I'd pass on this, but I'm watching video in my jammy pants and not on the floor at that spot.

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.

The INT is a tough call here but by rule . . .

She is clearly trying to foul her and get the whistle but is not making a play on the ball so IF you call a foul here you have to INT.

If you have a patient whistle and try to see how it develops you might be able to wait until the act of shooting for a common foul anyway, but she actually stops doing it before the act of shooting starts. You also run the risk of her needing to foul harder to get the call.

I think the official on the floor gave her as much rope as he felt like he could but when she let her go to take the layup whether he thought she'd had jersey or just felt like he had to have something because the whole gym saw her trying to foul his hands were tied.

What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?

(a) didn't happen...that requires actual impact
(b) didn't happen
(c) didn't happen...it wasn't a foul designed to stop the clock
(d) didn't happen
(e) not applicable

Very simply, reaching out and trying to foul someone isn't enough to be intentional. (a) is the closest but it actually requires that the contact has the impact of neutralizing the opponent's advantage.

Pulling on someone's jersey to slow them down would qualify...but she didn't do that.

I still maintain that this is simply not a foul, much less an intentional foul. If, instead, she actually got a grasp of the jersey and pulled it...sure, it would be an intentional foul. But we call what happens.

1. Foul. Obvious displacement after failed diving steal attempt.

2. I'd probably go intentional too, since A1 missed the layup. (edit: I probably might not have a foul at all on this play. Nothing the defender did appears to affect A1's rhythm, balance, speed or direction. But, by rule, I can easily see how the official went "intentional")

3. No travel. Left foot pivot did not return to floor before try was released.

4. Looks like a travel on film, but I'm probably not calling that at full speed in a game from the L (although the L in this play is in the best possible position to make that call since he's so wide).

Examples a-e are irrelevant because of "Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:"

So you're saying the rule defining intentional fouls doesn't matter when determining whether an intentional foul should be called? Really? So you can call an intentional foul any time you want to, no need to enter into any discussion on it.

How is she going to foul harder? She reaches in this manner cause the player with the ball is getting away from her?

Maybe the other player would foul her, sure, but that's not really my problem here.

(BTW, I think those that intentionally call girls games in a different manner than boys games are doing the girls a disservice.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is a left hand and then a right hand. It does resemble the wording of the rule. And..if you allow a player to smack the shi...out of a player holding the ball without calling a foul simply because the player held onto the ball I think you are making a mistake...a big one. Each will have to decide for themselves.

First time through, I didn't think she ever made contact. After watching a few more times, I think she might have brushed her with each hand, but this isn't a hand check. I'm sorry, it may fit the "one hand - two hand" wording, but that's too much of a stretch for me.

"hand checking" is a specific play where the defender is actively defending someone: virtually always in a position to actually defend. This is not that play.

I will say this, if you call anything, you better call it intentional. I'd just like to think I'd have the patience to let it go.

Me too but it's right out in front of the world with nothing else going on. I understand the call. I may have called it too....who knows....

No, I did not say that at all. Look at the words and understand the English language. You cited a-e only as part of your question/answer however those are just examples and intentional fouls are not limited to just those examples. The NFHS is just giving you some scenarios but not all of the scenarios for an intentional foul.

The only truly defining part is "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. "

So let me ask you this: what rule are you using to determine whether a foul is to be upgraded? Your only defining rule here seems to be even more nebulous than the rule you find insufficient. You say I'm wrong and that you didn't say you could call an intentional any time: what's your limiting factor here?

(moderator note)
I understand English just fine, so that part was unnecessary.

I think he is saying that the examples listed fall under the "include but not limited" category.

[QUOTE=Adam;1001329]It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.


The play does resemble the premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Not severity.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001318]What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?


The premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Doesn't have to based on severity part of the rule. Intent. Similar to tugging on a jersey. (which isn't even one of the examples). When this rule first came out, they used a play in the casebook very similar to this play.

So what, exactly, do we refer to when telling someone that the fouls we see all game aren't intentional fouls? In other words, if we don't agree that we can upgrade any foul we want to, what's the limiting authority here?

Honestly, I'm all for calling this an intentional if you think the contact warrants a foul: I'm just not convinced. If it's not an attempt to punch, then intent isn't enough without some successful execution. I don't think she makes enough contact to consider it successful execution of her intended foul.

I understand your point - you want to judge if the contact has an effect on the dribbler. I want to judge intent and want to decide if slight contact meets that intention.

There's more to it than judging intent, though. Look at how end of game fouling is accepted.

Now, that is a good comparative analysis to make in terms of "end of game" sitches---because we know the defense's 'intent' is to just stop the clock or gain possessions via missed FTs--regardless oftentimes of how the foul ''looks'' we frequently do not issue IFs despite said foul often meeting the NF criteria.

I think it's a sliding threshold. The more clear the intend, the less impact the contact probably needs to have. Had she completely missed, we're not even talking about intent. In this case, the miss was practically, but not quite, complete. I don't think that's enough.

And looking back at the score, there's no need to be getting a foul like this on the slightest touch. The team that fouled was leading by 1 at the time. That means my radar is not up for end-of-game fouls.

Agree that end of game has become accepted. But, premeditated foul from behind on a break away layup has not become "accepted" around here, end of game, first quarter, middle of 3rd quarter, etc.

I think that everybody agrees that the "intent" was there on this play but two different opinions on the amount of contact needed to complete the intention. Put me in the contact needed crowd instead of the advantage/disadvantage crowd when contact is involved. I am not sure if I am explaining myself correctly but on this play I would have made the same call as the guy in the video.

With my player/coach's hat on, I am thinking the exact opposite. I am looking at the score and the team that fouled was indeed up by one point. So, perhaps they had a foul to give or perhaps simply did not want to give up a layup. I think that is exactly what the girl behind was trying to do. I think she was trying to take a foul before any shot attempt but, turns out she was late.

The girl also makes contact with the shooter not once, but twice. Then the shooter misses the shot. Given multiple contact points from behind and a missed shot, I simply can't argue with the IF call. Not saying I would have made or not made it, just saying the calling official seems to have a pretty good case for his call.

Full disclosure we don't have intentionals in FIBA anymore. Everything is now an unsportsmanlike and the standards are obviously articulated differently. There are also automatics here for some actions and her act if deemed a foul would be one.

That being said based on the article you posted I would say if you were going to apply the standard a) and c) would be the ones you would use.

a) she is clearly not making a play on the ball and what the she took away would be up to the judgement of the official relative to the ability/situation of player. I'm ok with that judgement if that is what he makes.

c) she is very clearly trying to commit the foul to stop the break away she actually stops doing it once the shooting motion starts because she knows its too late now. Which means she committing the foul to stop the play and clock. Without making a play on the ball we are into the same area you get into at the end of the game. Where if the play is not a basketball play on the ball you come out with an INT/unsportsmanlike too because you have no justification not to call it that way.

Once again I feel like once you call this foul because of placement of the foul both on the player and court, you have to go intentional. I'm not saying you have to have a foul here but if you do its not common because its not a common/incidental play. There is intent and clearly done in a non basketball play to neutralize play and get the game stopped.

I would bet dollars to donughts that official without the benefit of our angles and replay thought one of the those contacts involved a jersey grab . . . but that really is just speculation.

You missed my point, because I probably wasn't clear.

The only way I'm making this call is if I'm on high alert for a potential clock-stopping foul. This isn't something I'd call at any other point in the game (not without internal regrets, anyway), but I will adjust and be on alert in late game situations. Even if I called this because my trigger was recalibrated, I'd regret it. My point in the post you quoted was that in this situation, I would not have recalibrated that trigger. Too much time, and the trailing team had the ball.

And if a partner made this call, I'd back it 100%. I just wouldn't have made it.

After a 2nd look I'm in the "nothing" category on the intentional foul call.

And I do wonder how many of you agreeing with the call would whistle that minimal contact in a boys game with bigger, faster, more athletic players.

I'm agreeing if you make the call it has to be intentional. Under our rule set (FIBA) I would have made the call because its suppose to be an automatic.

Under the NFHS guidelines I might pass entirely. But if I call I'm going intentional.

If in any game boys/girls the ball carrier had exploded away and was clearly not impacted the video is probably not even being discussed because no one can see a foul let alone watch several attempts at one take place. Reality is that whether its because shes a class 1A girls player, a class 4A boys player, a middle school aged owl . . . the player didn't explode away there was on going multiple contacts with whole gym is seeing it that you can make an argument for impacting her balance/rythm/control based on her inability to slow down and get on balance to make the uncontested layup at the end.

Keeping in mind if your on the side of the argument that says the contact didn't do anything she got off balanced and missed the layup because she: rushed/paniced/is terrible . . . I'm ok with you passing on everything too.

If 95 lbs freshmen boy gets bumped off the ball he's trying to dribble by a 245 lbs senior I can't pass on the foul because this is "boys basketball" and he should be stronger than that. Fouls are determined by their impact on the play not a players gender.

I just do not think that foul is premeditated by any means. It was a reflex to getting badly beat and she didn't neutralize any advantage by an opponent. Even if she "intended" to do it, it still doesn't meet the definitions of an intentional foul.

Someone else mentioned "not limited to"....I know that is there, but this action is not like the actions listed. I think an intentional foul call on this play is just wrong for the game. I think that any foul call on this is wrong.

If she had actually grasped the jersey and pulled on it, by all means, call an intentional, but that isn't what happened.

Agreed on determining foul by impact on play not gender. But was just asking the question.


Agreed here too. Like I said after a second look I'm passing on the contact here. But if I did have a whistle I'm still not going intentional.

I think it is somewhat interesting that we have a spectrum of opinions reaching from no foul all the way to intentional. Rarely would the same play lead to such disparate opinions. Usually, we're talking common vs no-call or common vs. intentional.

Why does tugging on the jersey earn an intentional in your game? It is not even listed in the rule?

Please see 4.19.3 Sit C in the 2016-17 NFHS Case Book.

It often neutralizes an opponents obvious advantage. If it doesn't do that, I don't call it intentional.

Those are examples and are NOT all inclusive:mad:

Plus, I think jersey grab/tug could be part of a, b, or c.

Lastly, it is case play 4.19.3.

I am aware of this case play. I was merely pointing out that even though tugging the jersey is not one of the examples, the rules makers want it called. The play in the video was either "emphasized" or a newly written as part of the intentional rule in the early 90's. They had a case play similar to the tugging the jersey case play.

It is not only that - the potential escalation should be considered.

Video request
 

Video Request
This might help this discussion.
2nd half 9:49 left Seton Hall at Butler, played today.

Well, this went downhill, as usual.