Personal Or Technical ???

[BillyMac]

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

A player, while in player control (holding the ball), frustrated by an annoyingly troublesome closely guarding defender, intentionally and deliberately (but not flagrantly, the illegal contact was not violent or savage) grabs the jersey of said defender (not a legitimate basketball play) and pulls him to the side and dribbles past said defender.

What's the call?

Can't be an intentional player control foul?

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

Right?

No free throws because it's illegal contact by a player in control of the ball (holding the ball)?

Two free throws (no rebounders) because the illegal contact was intentional (jersey grab) and was not a legitimate basketball play?

Does the intentional aspect of this illegal contact trump the common player control aspect of this illegal contact?

Wasn't there a case play or annual interpretation regarding such?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

[LRZ]

It's just my opinion, but, BillyMac, when you go off on these tangents with different factual scenarios, threads get tangled up. It's often hard to know which questions responses are addressing, situation A, B, C or X. Why not start new threads?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

It's just my opinion, but, BillyMac, when you go off on these tangents with different factual scenarios, threads get tangled up. It's often hard to know which questions responses are addressing, situation A, B, C or X. Why not start new threads?

Good point, but in this thread there's a common theme of comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

[LRZ]

Common themes = common threads = tangles.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Common themes = common threads = tangles.

Agree to a point. The key is that I liberally use the "quote" feature to pair questions and answers. But again, you have a point.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Don't need a case. Rule 4 is your friend. A common foul is a personal foul that is neither flagrant nor intentional. And a player control foul is defined as a common foul.

So, if the player with player control commits a flagrant or intentional foul, that foul cannot be common and therefor cannot be a PC foul.

If the player with player control grabbed a defender by the uniform and pulled him out of the way, that's an intentional foul, not a PC foul. Two shots for the player that was fouled and the ball to that team at the spot nearest the foul.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B?

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Already knew it, but wanted a citation, and also wanted to continue the discussion comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

Originally Posted by Altor

... a common foul is a personal foul that is neither flagrant nor intentional. And a player control foul is defined as a common foul. So, if the player with player control commits a flagrant or intentional foul, that foul cannot be common and therefore cannot be a PC foul.

Good explanation.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.

Probably am.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He is arguing with himself again, that is all.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by bucky

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B? Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

Nice citation, thanks bucky.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bucky

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B?

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

And if the try went in, it would count.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

Originally Posted by billyu2

And if the try went in, it would count.

If the ball was released before the foul.

I don't think that continuous motion (before the ball is released) applies to a foul by the offense, I believe that the ball becomes dead immediately.

I'm not sure, would like some confirmation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If the ball was released before the foul.

I don't think that continuous motion (before the ball is released) applies to a foul by the offense, I believe that the ball becomes dead immediately.

I'm not sure, would like some confirmation.

You been officiating too long to not know that rule. That means you've been calling it wrong for 30 or 40 years.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

Originally Posted by Raymond

You been officiating too long to not know that rule. That means you've been calling it wrong for 30 or 40 years.

I'm just hedging my bets ("Don't think", "I believe").

The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.

Don't see those every day. Never observed one in forty years. Probably die before I see my first.



After release, count the basket.

Before the release, don't count the basket.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

...

It's apparently affecting your basic basketball senses also. What you typed is an Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.