Fun With Incidental Contact ...

[Stat-Man]

The initial touch is ok because the White player takes his hand immediately off (aka the "hot stove"). In spite of the subsequent jostling between both of the players, I'm OK with the no-call that was made here (while open to other thoughts).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

The initial touch is ok because the White player takes his hand immediately off (aka the "hot stove"). In spite of the subsequent jostling between both of the players, I'm OK with the no-call that was made here (while open to other thoughts).

I saw two hands, followed by one hand, followed by contact once the dribble starts. YMMV

[BillyMac]

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...STlfYcts2E.mp4

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

It is not legal to use hands on an opponent, which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement. (4-24-5, 10-7-3) Green #1 receives a pass near the division line. The defender in white immediately places two hands on the ball handler. Placing two hands on the player constitutes a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. (10-7-12a) This initial contact is ruled incidental.

As Green #1 begins his dribble, the defender in the white jersey places his left hand on the dribbler. Placing and keeping a hand on or contacting the dribbler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands is a foul. (10-7-12c, d) This contact was also incorrectly ruled incidental on the play.

When Green #1 initially caught the ball, the Trail official's view was momentarily obstructed by the other players in the midcourt area. The Center official did not have an “open look” between the dribbler and defender. Once the ball entered the frontcourt, the ball was in the Center official’s Primary Coverage Area (PCA). Center officials need to try not to release into the frontcourt too soon. Had he remained and read the play, a position adjustment toward the division line would have put him in a better position to see the contact in his PCA. As the play developed, the Trail had a pretty good angle to see the contact on the dribbler, and it appeared to raise his arm to rule a foul but changed his mind.

Officials need to remain diligent in enforcing the rules outlined in 10-7-12 to ensure the ball handler’s freedom of movement is not inhibited by illegal contact.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a blocking foul 45%; This is incidental contact 40% (including me); This is a player control foul 15%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is this a handcheck, block, charge or incidental contact? Three choices: This is a blocking foul. This is a player control foul. This is incidental contact.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Nitpicking here (because I'm a sore loser). Handcheck wasn't a choice (although we could write it in, c'mon, how often do write in candidates actually win?).

I guess that a handcheck (or illegal use of hands) can be a form of blocking?

4-24-5: It is not legal to use hands on an opponent which in any way inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.

10-7-3: A player must not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping.

10-7-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position.
a. Placing two hands on the player.
b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player.
c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player.
d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands.

4-7-1: Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball.

I call a foul on IAABO for misleading.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I guess that a handcheck (or illegal use of hands) can be a form of blocking?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Holding would probably be a better description than blocking(from an earlier video).

While I probably always knew it deep inside my brain, one thing that I've discovered after serving on my local board's mechanics training committee (paying close attention to signals), and after studying these IAABO videos and play summaries, is that, while identifying illegal contact certainly can be judgmental, identifying the actual illegal act with a label (block, illegal use of hands, handcheck, push, holding, etc.) and with the proper signal surprisingly adds yet another level of subjective judgement to the equation.

Potato, Potahto; Tomato, Tomahto.

One official's block is another official's holding. One official's hand check is another official's block. Same illegal contact, different label, different signal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One official's block is another official's holding. One official's hand check is another official's block. Same illegal contact, different label, different signal.

We are always told that using "proper" signals improves communication. If coaches actually paid close attention to our signals over time, a lack of signal consistency among officials would be a cause for concern.

Note: Not a "dig" at coaches. They've got a lot to do besides comparing signals from game to game, and official to official. I've had upset, irritated coaches calm down after I report a foul to the table once they see that it was a push, not an illegal use of hands (for example), as they had expected (not seeing my preliminary signal). Some coaches do pay close attention to signals.

[rockyroad]

Off topic question here...for those of you in States where the players are required to wear masks, are you given any directives on enforcement by your State? Looking at the team in white, not a single one of them really has his mask "on"...so are you asked/required/directed by the State to deal with that at all? We won't have any basketball here until May, so we haven't heard anything yet.