Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What if the "push from behind" foul was so severe (which it definitely wasn't) that it changed the path of the shooter who then charged into the defender (he probably would have missed contacting the defender had he not been severely pushed)? If so, would it then be appropriate and correct to ignore the player control live ball contact? Citation? Intent and purpose?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... ruling that the contact from behind caused the PC foul, so not calling it ...

No argument from me. Intent and purpose? Or do you have a better citation?

On the other hand ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

More of a touch.

A "touch" (so slight that some may not have called the push from behind a foul and just ruled it incidental contact) caused the player control contact?

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

That PC foul was gonna happen regardless ...

This is a great play to dissect. There's a lot going on here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is a great play to dissect. There's a lot going on here.

Imagine (didn't happen here) if one official had ruled a "push from behind" foul and another had ruled a player control foul, not the classic "blarge" double foul where both gave opposing preliminary signals, but in this case where neither gave a preliminary signal other than a fist in the air, and they got together to discuss a possible false double foul. "I saw your push but then he smashed into and took out my guy during a live ball. I saw that player control foul coming all the way from here to downtown". And then the third official, Danvrapp, enters the conversation and adds, "That PC foul was gonna happen regardless".



I remember this from Miss Accurso's Biology II class.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Imagine (didn't happen here) if one official had ruled a "push from behind" foul and another had ruled a player control foul, not the classic "blarge" double foul where both gave opposing preliminary signals, but in this case where neither gave a preliminary signal other than a fist in the air, and they got together to discuss a possible false double foul. "I saw your push but then he smashed into and took out my guy during a live ball. I saw that player control foul coming all the way from here to downtown".

Agree with all of this. No prelim signals = great to talk over with your partner(s) to figure out what happened first, or whether the push wasn’t really a foul worth calling.

But what if there were two distinct and robust preliminary signals here (one for a push, one for a PC)? If this were a blarge scenario, the case books for NFHS and NCAA-M basically say you have to go with a double foul. So by extension, in this scenario, would you have to go with a simultaneous foul?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

But what if there were two distinct and robust preliminary signals here (one for a push, one for a PC)? If this were a blarge scenario, the case books for NFHS ... basically say you have to go with a double foul ...

We're not talking about one "contact event" here, like the famous casebook play with two opposing rulings on one "contact event".

Wouldn't a discussion between officials come to the conclusion that these were two separate fouls at two different times (second foul during a continuous motion airborne shooter live ball) and thus a false double foul?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We're not talking about one "contact event" here, like the famous casebook play with two opposing rulings on one "contact event".

Wouldn't a discussion between officials come to the conclusion that these were two separate fouls at two different times (second foul during a continuous motion airborne shooter live ball) and thus a false double foul?

That is certainly one way to look at it. When I was talking about a simultaneous foul, I was taking liberty from the definition of such that allows the two fouls to happen at approximately the same time.

But if you were to go false double here (again, this is all hypothetical and on the basis of two emphatic signals that would be hard for a crew to extricate itself from), that could certainly be appropriate (and one of the few times a false double foul did not have at least one technical foul involved). Now just imagine if the offensive team were in the bonus; they’d shoot a bonus with the lane cleared followed by the defensive team getting a backcourt throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

It's much the same as previous discussions we've had here before on when does a blarge become a blarge.

Nothing good can come from discussing it further.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Nothing good can come from discussing it further.

Fun's over. Thanks for playing. bob says it's time for everybody to go home.

I agree. Street lights are starting to come on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

That is certainly one way to look at it. When I was talking about a simultaneous foul, I was taking liberty from the definition of such that allows the two fouls to happen at approximately the same time.

But if you were to go false double here (again, this is all hypothetical and on the basis of two emphatic signals that would be hard for a crew to extricate itself from), that could certainly be appropriate (and one of the few times a false double foul did not have at least one technical foul involved). Now just imagine if the offensive team were in the bonus; they’d shoot a bonus with the lane cleared followed by the defensive team getting a backcourt throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The part that you write about the administration if the bonus is involved is not correct. Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting, the first defensive foul would make the ball immediately dead, so there would not be a PC foul and the bonus would be awarded as normal with players along the lane.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting...

He wasn’t?

Edit: Now that I think about it, since he’s in the act of shooting (which I would argue he was), in a FDF situation he gets two shots with the lane cleared regardless, right? Bonus doesn’t play into it (duh), and even if the ball goes in, the PCF negates the field goal which is what brings us back to two FTs.

Bob’s eyes must be rolling into the back of his head right about now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

... not an obvious push from behind first. Call the elephant (the run over) not the ant.

Agree this was a very large elephant and a very small ant.

Most of my questions and comments are regarding what happens after the "push from beheld" (correct, or incorrect) call was made (as it actually was in the video) in light of the fact that there was such an obvious "elephant" (player control contact).