Fun With Incidental Contact ...
 

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...KIXWlYTguj.mp4

IAABO International only gives two choices: incidental contact, or a foul (doesn't specify on whom).

Players are in equally advantageous positions to get to the ball. This is the poster child for the incidental contact rule.

Good Hustle, Play On ...
 

My comment: Incidental contact. No advantage taken or disadvantage given for either player. Good hustle. Play on.

I got nothing! Incidental Contact if there is any contact at all.

MTD, Sr.

If there was a foul to be considered, it would have been on black for tripping. There's nothing white did that would even be in consideration.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Cousin It ...
 

Saw it. Thought about it. Passed on it. Might reconsider it.

Raymond:

Like Billy I went back and looked at the video one more time and I have reconsidered. I see contact and it is a Blocking Foul by Black.

MTD, Sr.

Be Careful What You Ask For ...
 

Wouldn't it be nice to have video replay available on every close, controversial, game saving, or crazy call in a game?

Of course, then the game would take five hours.

Never mind.

If white ends up on the floor, I'm calling a foul every single time. As it is, it's probably 50/50 as the amount of contact is hard to judge.

Player on the floor got to the spot first and tipped the ball. I got nothing on anyone.

Peace

I am all for not passing on obvious illegal actions during loose balls even though “they’re going for the ball,” but there just isn’t enough here. The opponents’ positions are close enough to “equally favorable” that I think a no-call is the best decision here.

Black, from a position slightly behind, dove into the legs of white, knocking him down. It wasn't much, but that prevented white from being able to get to the ball....foul on black.

I can see this being called either way (channeling my inner IAABO).

B *might be* slightly behind with his feet, but I think his torso and arm are ahead and he touches the ball first. And, B is going (more-or-less) parallel to the sideline and is the same distance from it as the ball, while W is moving from inside toward the sideline to get the ball (the ball is between the VB line and the BK sideline; W is on the VB line).

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.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...KIXWlYTguj.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This should have been ruled a foul.

In this play, two players are running after a loose ball in an attempt to gain possession of the ball. Blue #22 dives onto the floor and slightly contacts White #3 in the process.

What impact did this contact have on White #3? To answer this question, watch the play again from the perspective of White #3 and try to imagine what the play would have looked like if the contact had not occurred. Would White #3 have had a better chance of starting a dribble and maintaining control of the ball? Would White #3 have ended up on the floor? Which team do you think would have ended up with possession of the ball?

Loose ball contact continues to be an area of concern.Far too often, officials are making these rulings based on the severity of contact. Many officials view slight contact as insignificant and incorrectly rule it to be legal. The incidental contact rule (Rule 4-27) is one of the most important rules for any official to master. Few officials ascend to higher levels of play without mastering this concept. But, rules astute officials know that the severity of contact has little to do in determining if contact is illegal or incidental.

So how do we decide? This determination comes down to one basic concept, freedom of movement. The only question officials need to ask themselves is, “What impact did the contact have on the opponent?” If contact did not inhibit an opponent’s freedom of movement, the contact is incidental and should be ruled legal. But, if freedom of movement is inhibited, it must be ruled a foul.

How do we know if a player has been inhibited? When contact impacts the player's Rhythm, Speed, Balance, or Quickness (RSBQ), the player has been inhibited, and the contact should be ruled a foul.

In this play, it appears White #3 has a reasonable chance to start a dribble and possibly maintain possession for his team until the contact occurred. It appears he had no intention of going to the floor and only ended up on the floor due to the contact of Blue #3. This contact (even though it was slight) inhibited his freedom of movement or RSBQ; therefore, it should have been ruled a foul.

When making this type of ruling, officials will undoubtedly hear, “but he was just going for the ball!” Our game's contact rules are not ignored just because a player is attempting to gain possession of the ball. In all facets of our game, contact rulings should be based on freedom of movement.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video (only two choices): Incidental contact 75% (including me); Foul 25% .

I feel confident that the supervisors I have experience with would support either decision upon a complaint from a coach. I also feel confident that they would then advise the official to no-call similar plays in the future.

We don't get to officiate in slow motion.