Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...

[BillyMac]

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...%2B1Hd5g%3D%3D

Here's my comment: White #20’s push from behind came first, followed by Blue #5’s player control foul. The ball remained live after White #20’s push from behind due to continuous motion and an airborne shooter, so Blue #5’s player control foul occurred during a live ball, and should be charged, perhaps as false double foul (fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent).

IAABO only give two choices: block, or player control foul.

Early comments from IAABO members seem to be leaning toward a player control foul, probably by, at least, a three, or four, to one margin.

Thoughts?

[Danvrapp]

That PC foul was gonna happen regardless, and I'm not sure the push from behind is enough for me to not be able to sell PC. If those are my two choices, I'll agree with the call that was made.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

That PC foul was gonna happen regardless, and I'm not sure the push from behind is enough for me to not be able to sell PC. If those are my two choices, I'll agree with the call that was made.

Agree....and I'm not even sure he was really pushed from behind. More of a touch.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... not even sure he was really pushed from behind. More of a touch.

Certainly not a gigantic push, but the shooter was hit in the head by the defenders's elbow. Certainly could have been ruled incidental contact. One won't get any argument from me.

Ponder this. Forget about the player control foul for now (assume defender was never there), was the contact by the defender from behind alone enough to charge a foul and have the shooter shoot two free throws?

The Lead thought so, and made the "push from behind" call. Was he in good position to do so? Did the Center have a better look, and did he pass on the "push from behind" call as incidental contact, or was he more concerned with how Blue #32 was wearing his mask?

Now ponder this. Once the the "push from behind" call was made (as it actually was, correctly or incorrectly), doesn't one also have to call the "easy" player control foul? The ball was still live (continuous motion, airborne shooter) when this player control contact occurred.

Does one ignore the "easy" player control contact because ruling a false double foul in this situation is overly officious and would be difficult to explain to a complaining coach?

Further more, what if the ball had gone in the basket (yikes), and a false double foul had been called, creating an instant dead ball? No basket, and two free throws? Have fun explaining that to a complaining coach as you invite him to take a seat on the bench, or on the cold bus in the parking lot. Maybe both coaches?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Once the the "push from behind" call was made (as it actually was, correctly or incorrectly), doesn't one also have to call the "easy" player control foul? The ball was still live (continuous motion, airborne shooter) when this player control contact occurred.

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

That PC foul was gonna happen regardless ...

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

perhaps as false double foul (fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent).

I suppose by rule you could call according to 4.19.9.

In practice I'm either ruling that the contact from behind caused the PC foul, so not calling it, or (more likely) calling that portion of the play a clean block and ruling just the PC foul.

[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 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).

[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 Danvrapp

That PC foul was gonna happen regardless, and I'm not sure the push from behind is enough for me to not be able to sell PC. If those are my two choices, I'll agree with the call that was made.

You realize that the call made on the court was the pushing foul from behind on #20 white?

I’m not certain that contact is a foul, but if a fellow official deems it so, that’s fine, but I’m still calling the live ball PC.