Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...
 

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?

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.

Pondering A False Double Foul ...
 

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?

What If Severely Pushed ???
 

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?

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.

Contact From Behind Caused The Player Control Contact ...
 

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

On the other hand ... 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?

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

Not Your Father's Classic Blarge Double Foul ...
 

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".

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.h...=0&w=299&h=169

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

Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...
 

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

Elephant In The Room ...
 

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).

Two Separate Fouls At Two Different Times ...
 

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

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.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...
 

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. [emoji3]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most here know that I prefer Charges to Blocks. This play is a difficult one to call and I will be honest I think that it would be very difficult to rule that a Charging Foul. I honestly think that the most logical call is that that W20 Pushed B5 rather that saying that B5 Charged into W2 before W20 Pushed B5.

MTD, Sr.

Order On The Court ...
 

That's not what happened, it was different order of contact events. B5 "contacted" W2 after W20 "contacted" B5. That's the order of what actually happened. We can always debate whether, or not, a foul, or fouls, should have been charged, but we can't change the order of "contact" events.

IAABO International Play Commentary ...
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO Eyes Only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a player control foul.

This is a tough play. Does White #2 establish LGP? Does Blue #5 run him over? Does White #20 create illegal contact and accelerate the shooter on the crash?

Blue #5 appears to establish the right foot as the pivot foot, then lift that foot before releasing the ball to start his dribble, which should have been ruled a traveling violation.

The lead does make a good decision not to rotate as the ball was passed to the midcourt area. The lead is responsible for block/charge plays in the lane and identifying secondary defenders. (Manual p. 20 7.d, page 35 graphic)

In this play, the secondary defender White #2 does establish a legal guarding position (two feet on the playing court, facing the dribbler). The question becomes what impact the primary defender (White #20) had on the contact between the shooter (Blue #5) and the secondary defender.

If White #20, in an attempt to block the shot from behind, contacted Blue #5 from behind that caused him to charge into White #5, then the foul should be charged to White #20 for pushing. Since the play originated near the top of the lane in the Trail’s primary coverage area (PCA), the Trail official should stay connected to the primary defender as the play develops into the lane area. The Center official (not pictured) could also assist with this contact.

From the camera angle provided, it appears the primary defender (White #20) is able to get his hand on the ball to block the shot as Blue #5 is attempting to try for goal. It does not appear that White #20 was on the shooter's back and contributed to the subsequent contact between the shooter and secondary defender.

If this is the case, the correct ruling would be a player control foul on Blue #5 for the illegal contact he committed on the torso of the secondary defender, White #2.

Please Note: On plays such as this, there are times a false double foul situation could occur. If the defender B1 had illegally contacted the airborne shooter (A1) and then the airborne shooter (A1) then charges into the secondary defender (B2), both fouls would need to be charged. Many officials think only the first foul would be charged. However, If the first foul by the B1 does not contribute to the subsequent contact committed by A1 on the torso of B2, by rule, this is a false double foul, and a foul would be charged to both players.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Player Control Foul: 68%; Blocking Foul: 32% (including me).

Now you’ve got it, sir!