The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 12:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckS View Post
Or it is conduct to try to prevent a player from setting a ball screen.



Are you asking officials to evaluate where a player is on the team's depth chart, before judging an action on the floor?


You do understand where all this could lead, it's nuts to not clarify before somebody really abuses it, perhaps in a tourney game. As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half. I have not seen a team try this other than OU, so if the window is open and NCAA admin of officials doesn't clarify, someone will push the envelope. I don't really care, just find it interesting.

but to answer your question I guess, no, you rarely if ever see a player trying to prevent another player from moving in open court to set a ball screen, and it is quite clear what the intent is here, particularly given the fact that the defender involved is off the end of the bench.

You position, I take it, is as long as it isn't a bear hug or 2 hand push, and as long as the fouled player isn't standing in the corner, it's not an F1? I'm trying to exercise common sense on 'intent', and yes, whether the player committing the repeated fouls is from the end of the bench is relevant to that issue.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen anyone associated with the KU program even hint that they should have been F1, that is not their style, I'm just curious whether actual D1 officials have been given any better guidance on how to assess or handle this situation if it comes up. Apparently the answer is no. I watch a lot of basketball and have never seen it off-ball like this. No need to foul the player with the ball late anymore, apparently, as long as you don't bear hug or push with your hands. I'm just trying to get it defined with a little more clarity. Surely it is an interesting question for people that officiate, and please don't tell me it's clear to anyone as to how to handle it? If so, answer, if that exact conduct happens on fouls 7-9 and a couple more in the first half with a player that isn't normally playing, and then again in the 2nd half for 5 fouls beginning with 7-9 and then a couple more, with another player that doesn't play other than those few minutes, are they all common fouls? In this case, the player that fouled out in 2 minutes got quite an ovation as he was ushered to the bench. No one in the place had any doubt what was going on. My question, could it happen with another 1,2,3 players? where is the line drawn? If there is no answer as of now, we'll probably have a better idea by the end of this season.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half.
Just for reference Kansas averages ~73 possessions per game. With the range being from Virginia at 63.4 to the top of ~85 possessions/game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...sions-per-game
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 01:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdoebler View Post
Just for reference Kansas averages ~73 possessions per game. With the range being from Virginia at 63.4 to the top of ~85 possessions/game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...sions-per-game
Thanks, so it would take 3 scrubs to impact 20 % of their possessions. Doesn't strike me as within the spirit of the rules
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 01:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 243
This is an abasement of the sport and should be noticed and punished. Once it's clear of the intent, the player and coach should be quietly warned. Perhaps after the second questionable foul.

That said, Kansas didn't help matters by keeping the player involved in the offense by cutting, screening and posting up. Made it much easier to disguise these fouls.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 01:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
You do understand where all this could lead, it's nuts to not clarify before somebody really abuses it, perhaps in a tourney game. As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half. I have not seen a team try this other than OU, so if the window is open and NCAA admin of officials doesn't clarify, someone will push the envelope. I don't really care, just find it interesting.

but to answer your question I guess, no, you rarely if ever see a player trying to prevent another player from moving in open court to set a ball screen, and it is quite clear what the intent is here, particularly given the fact that the defender involved is off the end of the bench.

You position, I take it, is as long as it isn't a bear hug or 2 hand push, and as long as the fouled player isn't standing in the corner, it's not an F1? I'm trying to exercise common sense on 'intent', and yes, whether the player committing the repeated fouls is from the end of the bench is relevant to that issue.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen anyone associated with the KU program even hint that they should have been F1, that is not their style, I'm just curious whether actual D1 officials have been given any better guidance on how to assess or handle this situation if it comes up. Apparently the answer is no. I watch a lot of basketball and have never seen it off-ball like this. No need to foul the player with the ball late anymore, apparently, as long as you don't bear hug or push with your hands. I'm just trying to get it defined with a little more clarity. Surely it is an interesting question for people that officiate, and please don't tell me it's clear to anyone as to how to handle it? If so, answer, if that exact conduct happens on fouls 7-9 and a couple more in the first half with a player that isn't normally playing, and then again in the 2nd half for 5 fouls beginning with 7-9 and then a couple more, with another player that doesn't play other than those few minutes, are they all common fouls? In this case, the player that fouled out in 2 minutes got quite an ovation as he was ushered to the bench. No one in the place had any doubt what was going on. My question, could it happen with another 1,2,3 players? where is the line drawn? If there is no answer as of now, we'll probably have a better idea by the end of this season.
I think you are looking for something that is beyond the scope of this forum
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 02:55pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 12,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
...

But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball...

...My view is that at least 2, if not 3, of those fouls should be considered F1....
When I played, once I started to recognize the opponent's offense, I would regularly do what I could to prevent screeners from getting to their spot. It is most definitely a basketball play.

Like I said previously, you need to write Art Hyland, because nobody in this forum is on the rules committee nor did any of us work the KU/OU game.

And in my view, none of those fouls came remotely close to being F1's.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Mon Jan 29, 2018 at 03:01pm.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 03:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechanicGuy View Post
This is an abasement of the sport and should be noticed and punished. Once it's clear of the intent, the player and coach should be quietly warned. Perhaps after the second questionable foul.
A foul is punished -- as are repeated fouls, which are penalized more severely after 7 and then again after 10 each half.

I'm not sure why people are so worked up about this. It is a strategy that is limited in its use (limits to roster sizes and 5 fouls per player) and has a very easy counter strategy -- namely substituting a better free throw player into the game. I don't see it as any different than fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock.

If this became such a problem, I think it would need to be addressed with a major rules change (like when the shot clock was added to avoid stall offense). I don't advocate this, but something like making the bonus FTs optional (teams could choose to take the ball OOB instead) would be a better solution than trying to having officials consider a players skill at shooting FTs and how far down the depth chart the fouler is when determining whether or not to rule a common or intentional/FF1
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 04:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokiePaul View Post
A foul is punished -- as are repeated fouls, which are penalized more severely after 7 and then again after 10 each half.

I'm not sure why people are so worked up about this. It is a strategy that is limited in its use (limits to roster sizes and 5 fouls per player) and has a very easy counter strategy -- namely substituting a better free throw player into the game. I don't see it as any different than fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock.

If this became such a problem, I think it would need to be addressed with a major rules change (like when the shot clock was added to avoid stall offense). I don't advocate this, but something like making the bonus FTs optional (teams could choose to take the ball OOB instead) would be a better solution than trying to having officials consider a players skill at shooting FTs and how far down the depth chart the fouler is when determining whether or not to rule a common or intentional/FF1
Really?

And we determine intent all the time. Is there even any debate as to what was happening in this game?

There's no need for new rules. Maybe a POE, but the rules to prevent this kind of gamesmanship already exist.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 04:35pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,055
I did not see a lot wrong with any of these fouls. I saw fouls that could have taken place in any other aspect of the game. If that is the case, then just call the foul and move on. It was clear what they were doing, but it was done in such a way that nothing stood out to the actual contact or situation. I would like to see if the NCAA even comments on this situation in any way.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 04:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,735
I think the current rules / guidelines have some statement to the effect that "here are some things to consider when deciding whether a foul is an F1 (or equivalent)...."

They might add "whether the same player has been fouled away from the ball repeatedly in a short period of time"
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 05:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
I think you are looking for something that is beyond the scope of this forum
This is what I was thinking as well. Thedewed, I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it could be punished in game, unless one of those fouls was so clearly flagrant that they could call it as such. This is a bigger issue. Actually no it isn't, it's not a bigger issue yet, but it could easily become one.

The best suggestions I've seen so far also comes from Bob:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
I think the current rules / guidelines have some statement to the effect that "here are some things to consider when deciding whether a foul is an F1 (or equivalent)...."

They might add "whether the same player has been fouled away from the ball repeatedly in a short period of time"
But if even considered, it wouldn't be until after the season.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 05:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 87
I appreciate all of your thoughts. I'm simply thinking it through logically, and I believe that what OU did any team from grade school up could do with about 5 minutes of instruction, if interpreted the way some on here are saying, that those fouls were simple fouls.

Interestingly, aTm didn't go down the road at all this past Saturday, but I am pretty sure some team in conference will do it, particularly when they are at home. I expect it to happen in the K State game tonight.

And as I say, my interpretation would be if somebody is playing basketball, or essentially intentionally fouling. If I believe it is intentional conduct, even if not excessive or flagrant, and particularly if off-ball, I believe the proper interpretation of the rule book is still that it was suffer the additional penalty. I hesitate to say F1 because I think that misleads people as to what conduct is intended to be penalized under the rule. Nothing has happened in the rules to change them from where they were a decade ago as to intentional conduct; I just don't think this particular strategy has been deployed to the point where it has caught the attention of the higher ups. Hopefully it will be clarified before the NCAA tourney when it really counts for everyone.

I also believe a factor that has confused the issue is the greater restriction on doing things to impede free movement. Again, that shouldn't, and I don't believe it did, have changed the conduct that was intended to be hit with the extra penalty. In fact, I'd argue it makes this conduct even more obviously intentional, unless the fouler is mentally challenged.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 05:56pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
And as I say, my interpretation would be if somebody is playing basketball, or essentially intentionally fouling. If I believe it is intentional conduct, even if not excessive or flagrant, and particularly if off-ball, I believe the proper interpretation of the rule book is still that it was suffer the additional penalty. I hesitate to say F1 because I think that misleads people as to what conduct is intended to be penalized under the rule. Nothing has happened in the rules to change them from where they were a decade ago as to intentional conduct; I just don't think this particular strategy has been deployed to the point where it has caught the attention of the higher ups. Hopefully it will be clarified before the NCAA tourney when it really counts for everyone.
Well, you will need to take this up with the NCAA so that they agree with your position or the NF (without the video and training) to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
I also believe a factor that has confused the issue is the greater restriction on doing things to impede free movement. Again, that shouldn't, and I don't believe it did, have changed the conduct that was intended to be hit with the extra penalty. In fact, I'd argue it makes this conduct even more obviously intentional, unless the fouler is mentally challenged.
Again, this is above most of our pay grade. We have nothing to do with what an interpretation says or how it should be done.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 06:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 87
with all due respect, I do think that some of you are only considering whether the conduct is excessive, giving greater weight to the change of the word 'intentional' in the definition to 'flagrant' , when that change was only made to 'clarify' that conduct didn't need to be intentional to be penalized. That is the unintended loophole here in my opinion. Intentional contact should still be subject to the greater penalty if you believe it was intentional. And NCAA officials at this point are left to interpret what is intended by the language. And I know that we used to be taught that conduct off ball that was an intentional foul...was an intentional foul. More discretion was involved when the conduct was on-ball. None of that has been changed by anything the NCAA has said in guidelines, rules, interpretations, that I've found.

I also think a great change to the rule for many reasons would be a team always has the option to take the ball out of bounds rather than shoot free throws. A team should never be able to use fouling to its advantage would make for a better game, and shorten the game as well. Some teams would take the 2 fts of course, with a good ft shooter, in that there is always greater danger of a steal on throw-ins.

Last edited by thedewed; Mon Jan 29, 2018 at 06:22pm.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 29, 2018, 06:58pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedewed View Post
with all due respect, I do think that some of you are only considering whether the conduct is excessive, giving greater weight to the change of the word 'intentional' in the definition to 'flagrant' , when that change was only made to 'clarify' that conduct didn't need to be intentional to be penalized. That is the unintended loophole here in my opinion. Intentional contact should still be subject to the greater penalty if you believe it was intentional. And NCAA officials at this point are left to interpret what is intended by the language. And I know that we used to be taught that conduct off ball that was an intentional foul...was an intentional foul. More discretion was involved when the conduct was on-ball. None of that has been changed by anything the NCAA has said in guidelines, rules, interpretations, that I've found.
You would be wrong. I do not only consider the issue of excessive. But if I saw these plays individually, I would have thought nothing special about the plays. And to suggest that we know for sure how "intentional" something is so that we can get directly into the mind of someone.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fouling airborne shooter when ball is dead... ? PSidbury Basketball 20 Wed Dec 01, 2010 07:39pm
Wake Forest vs VA Tech - Dead Ball Fouling grunewar Basketball 11 Wed Feb 17, 2010 02:09pm
When the FT shooter has the ball ... Johnny Ringo Basketball 7 Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:29am
FT - ball gets away from shooter Rich Basketball 12 Mon Feb 20, 2006 01:22am
Fouling the Shooter Flip Basketball 9 Wed May 31, 2000 02:41am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1