Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[JRutledge]

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



Play #2:



Play #3 & 4:



Peace

[BillyMac]

#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.

[bucky]

Yea, seems like obvious foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

1. Foul on red.

2. Intentional

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

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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

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.)

[Amesman]

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.

[JRutledge]

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.



Peace

[ODog]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ODog

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).

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

[VaTerp]

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.

[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.