The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 23, 2021, 03:17pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Above The Shoulder Contact ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here.
While the "specifics" (intentional or flagrant fouls) of this very old Point of Emphasis may (I'm not sure, there seems to be two schools of thought)) have faded over time, I don't believe that the purpose and intent of this Point of Emphasis has changed: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 01:11am.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 23, 2021, 04:12pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing".

That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred.

In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated).

Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul).

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question.

Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole.

The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct.
I did not move a damn thing. I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul. And I was not the first to state that position. Now, this was your video, not mine. You posted this and wanted to debate the situation in which you wanted to support your position. I stated the angle was bad and cannot confirm or deny if the official on the play is wrong. Now if you would stop trying to debate yourself on every damn thread, you might realize when someone is taking a position. But as usually you go on and on responding to yourself you think that everyone is changing something when I have been consistent throughout. If I was a clinician at a camp and saw this play, I would ask the official, "What did you see?" Then let them explain why they made the call or not. Because I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement. Very hard to tell from this angle. But how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 23, 2021, 05:56pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
No Contact ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul.
Yes you did, a logical comment that is worth exploring.

But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way".

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...
Big differences between no contact, incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, and illegal contact that does warrant a foul.

If there was some contact (as some of JRutledge's later posts implied), as shown in the video with some thoughtful study, we can move on to discussing if it was incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul, subjective judgment calls that are always worth discussing and debating in an educational manner. But if one believes that there wasn't any contact (as in JRutledge's early post), one can't discuss and debate illegal/incidental.

One (not necessarily JRutledge) can't say "if there was contact" and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...
Words matter.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 01:32am.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 23, 2021, 06:16pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
You Make The Call ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement ... how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?
We don't have to explain why the official made her call.

Nor do we have to explain something that we can't see in the video due to our viewing angle.

We could view the video, as presented, make a call, or a no call, and explain why we made the call, or no call (not why she made the call).

In the video, as presented, is there contact with the neck area of the defender?

If so, in the video, as presented, is this incidental contact, not warranting a foul?

Or, in the video, as presented, is this contact illegal, warranting a foul?

If one can't see any contact, or doesn't see any contact, just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No contract. It's just that simple as a stand alone statement.

Is there anything else going on that's worth mentioning (travel, defender contact not warranting a foul, defender contact warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler not warranting a foul, other contact by the ball handler warranting a foul)?

JRutledge's knowledge and experience is way too valuable to be dismissed, or ignored. He's worth listening to. I just wish that he was more careful with his wording.

Words matter.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 01:29am.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 12:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
This angle I don't see anything the defender does illegal.

I can clearly see the offensive player's arm unnaturally in the defender's head and neck region with contact just before the official blows her whistle.

I'll trust her angle and judgment in regards to that call.

Very first lesson I ever learned in my very first basketball camp 19 years ago was to call fouls when there is contact to the head. It has always stuck with me. The person who ran that little local high school camp is now the supervisor for about 9 or 10 Men's D1 conferences and his philosophies kind of permeate in this region of the country down to the D3 level.
Agree.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 01:28am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Contact To The Head ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
Very first lesson I ever learned in my very first basketball camp 19 years ago was to call fouls when there is contact to the head. It has always stuck with me. The person who ran that little local high school camp is now the supervisor for about 9 or 10 Men's D1 conferences and his philosophies kind of permeate in this region of the country down to the D3 level.
Sounds a little like the NFHS 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis. While I personally believe that the specifics (common/intentional/flagrant, moving/excessive moving) may still be valid, I can understand why others wouldn't believe such (how are inexperienced officials to know). But I strongly believe that the intent and purpose of the eight year old Point Of Emphasis is still valid: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 08:09am.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 09:05am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Yes you did, a logical comment that is worth exploring.

But in earlier posts you said something different, commenting that there was "no" contact "in any way".



Big differences between no contact, incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, and illegal contact that does warrant a foul.

If there was some contact (as some of JRutledge's later posts implied), as shown in the video with some thoughtful study, we can move on to discussing if it was incidental contact contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul, subjective judgment calls that are always worth discussing and debating in an educational manner. But if one believes that there wasn't any contact (as in JRutledge's early post), one can't discuss and debate illegal/incidental.

One (not necessarily JRutledge) can't say "if there was contact" and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.



Words matter.
Once again, you are mostly arguing with yourself. I do not see anything in the video that confirms or denies any foul either way. Again this is coming from a person that only works 2 person and never worked the playoffs, trying to tell me what should or should not be called on a video he was not on or did not speak to the official at hand. And again Rule 4-27 did not magically go away. And there is no rule that supports all contact with the neck and head area that says we must call those fouls. No rule whatsoever. Not a single one. Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact that every other level feels is incidental. So again I stand by what I stated because this is not a very good video to evaluate if the official was in good position at the time of contact. Honestly, it looks like that official saw the extension and called something but we cannot tell if that contact displaced the opponent (which the rules kind of require) or put them at a disadvantage in any way. Again, the angle is horrible. I do not see separation (angle again) created by the so-called contact that I would warrant a foul. Even the attempt of a push-off is not a foul. See these all the time and pass because the defender is still in place to defend the ball handler.

Either way, it does not matter, just giving a perspective on what I saw. Not the authority or the final word. I do not work for IAABO and definitely not hanging on every word they state about this play. Good for discussion because you can examine things like positioning, angles, philosophy and mechanics, with multiple different positions.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 03:11pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
Stand By No Such Contact ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
So again I stand by what I stated ...
So you stand by when you stated that there was no neck/arm contact at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...
I'm not arguing with you about whether, of not, the contact warrants a foul call, or not, that's a subjective judgment that is definitely up to interpretation, with various logical opinions.

I'm saying to you that in order for you to judge the contact to be illegal or incidental, you first have to acknowledge that some type of neck/arm contact actually did occur, and that you've actually observed the neck/arm contact in the video, something that you never really confirmed in a definite manner.

For example: JRutledge: Although I first believed that no such neck/arm contact occurred, and that there was no contact to the face or head in any way, in fact I believed that I saw nothing, and after BillyMac pointed out exactly where I could observe the arm/neck contact on the video, I changed my mind after actually observing the arm/neck contact in the video. I was wrong, I agree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that there was actually was arm/neck contact. However I disagree with BillyMac, Camron Rust, and Raymond that this arm/neck contact is illegal contact that warrants a foul, but rather, I believe that this is legal incidental contact that does not warrant a foul for the following reasons ...

After that, it becomes easy to have a professional and productive discussion and debate with you.

Words matter. They should not be simply discarded and cast aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... no such contact .. no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... I see nothing ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Good for discussion because you can examine things like positioning, angles, philosophy and mechanics, with multiple different positions.
Agree. That's why I've been posting these IAABO Make The Call Videos, even though few Forum members are IAABO members. Non-IAABO Forum members can just ignore the followup IAABO Play Commentary and Correct Answer, or are certainly welcome to criticize such. I've been critical or some of the IAABO Play Commentaries and Correct Answers, and I'm a proud, loyal IAABO member.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 05:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 05:57pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
All Contact Above The Shoulders ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... there is no rule that supports all contact with the neck and head area that says we must call those fouls. No rule whatsoever. Not a single one.
Totally agree 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact ...
I didn't want to dive down this rabbit hole because the jury's out regarding the validity, or lack of validity, of an eight year old NFHS Point Of Emphasis that hasn't been updated recently, that never made it's way into the rulebook, casebook, or a recent annual interpretation, and that no officials with less than eight years of experience may even know about ...

... but since you brought it up, you're wrong. The Point Of Emphasis actually did address all types of contact with the head (above the shoulders):

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.


It says that all contact to the head initiated by a moving elbow has to be adjudicated as some type of foul (common, intentional, or flagrant). The only time a foul may not be adjudicated is contact with the head by a stationary elbow, and even then, under a few circumstances that may be adjudicated as a common foul, but with other circumstances it may also be adjudicated as incidental.

The ball handler's arm/elbow in the video was moving, and that resulted in contact to the defender's head (enough to cause defender's head to move), so eight years ago, it was interpreted to be a foul of some type (common, intentional, or flagrant).

Of course that may no longer be valid, but that's another story for another time.

Bottom line, you were wrong about the old interpretation, it did address all the kinds of contact with the head (above the shoulders).

Which kind of contact with the head (above the shoulders) was omitted?

A slight touch to the head? Yeah, technically it's contact. But we always are to consider intent and purpose, use common sense, and use our experience. It's why we get paid the big bucks.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Apr 24, 2021 at 06:04pm.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 08:01pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
So you stand by when you stated that there was no neck/arm contact at all?
Yes I do not see any contact from that angle and even if there was it does not mean something special needs to be called.

Intentional and Flagrant fouls were POEs this year. Where is the language that says contact with the head and shoulders must be considered either Intentional or Flagrant?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 24, 2021, 08:19pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,590
And finally, simple contact is not a foul. Contact can be severe and not be a foul. This is why other levels have completely backed off of rules that used to say any elbow contact was to be upgraded, to only when certain circumstances are not. I have several videos on my page that show plays where elbow contact was not a foul and ruled incidental. Even the NCAA set parameters that stated when elbow contact is illegal. This POE came out when the NCAA was ultra-sensitive about concussions and plays where contact was with the head and later created rules and standards to address these plays and not penalize the player that his someone with an elbow during normal situations. Has the NF changed any rules, updated their philosophy in any rulebook? Stated anything that we must upgrade or consider all contact as an Intentional or Flagrant Foul anywhere in 2020-2021 Rulebook? When someone posts that, let me know. I have said this before, no one cares what is in the rulebook 10 years ago and not just newer officials. This is like me talking about the rules that did not allow more than one logo on socks in the 90s (yes that happened).

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 11:09am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
No Contact ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Yes I do not see any contact from that angle ...
If you don't see any contact at all, than how can you offer a valid opinion on said contact regarding whether the contact is legal incidental contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
... even if there was it does not mean something special needs to be called.
One can't say "if there was" contact and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.

To those of us (me, Camron Rust, and Raymond) that believe that there was contact, just say "Your'e wrong. There wasn't contact". Period, end of discussion. No need for you to rationalize why the contact wan't a foul, because, according to you, there was no contact.

Camron Rust, and Raymond both saw the contact, if they were to state an opinion that said contact was legal contact the didn't warrant a foul, that would carry at lot of weight, because they actually saw the contact before forming an opinion (they didn't, they, like me, believe that this is illegal contact that does warrant a foul).

You don't see any contact. Just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No need to discuss an old Point Of Emphasis valid, or invalid. It's a stand alone statement. It's an opinion that shouldn't be ridiculed (despite video evidence), and should be given some consideration. But how can you logically opine on contact that, according to you, you never observed, and doesn't even exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Intentional and Flagrant fouls were POEs this year. Where is the language that says contact with the head and shoulders must be considered either Intentional or Flagrant?
No such language because the Point of Emphasis just restates verbatim (no additional commentary) the existing rule as written, the same rule that existed in 2012-13 when the infamous Point of Emphasis came out. While the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis does list some examples, it does so in a very general way (one exception: contact with a thrower-in), such as "excessive contact", not listing such contact such as grabbing a jersey on a breakaway layup, bear hug on a breakaway layup, two hand push from behind on a breakaway layup, etc. Rather than listing all the examples of intentional fouls, the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis simply states "are not limited to"
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Apr 25, 2021 at 03:25pm.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 11:15am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
POE Did Not Address All The Kinds Of Contact ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Even the POE did not address all the kinds of contact that every other level feels is incidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
... but since you brought it up, you're wrong. The Point Of Emphasis actually did address all types of contact with the head (above the shoulders) ... It says that all contact to the head initiated by a moving elbow has to be adjudicated as some type of foul (common, intentional, or flagrant). The only time a foul may not be adjudicated is contact with the head by a stationary elbow, and even then, under a few circumstances that may be adjudicated as a common foul, but with other circumstances it may also be adjudicated as incidental ... Bottom line, you were wrong about the old interpretation, it did address all the kinds of contact with the head (above the shoulders). Which kind of contact with the head (above the shoulders) was omitted?
Never got a reply to this above.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 11:45am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
No Need For Infamous 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
And finally, simple contact is not a foul. Contact can be severe and not be a foul. This is why other levels have completely backed off of rules that used to say any elbow contact was to be upgraded, to only when certain circumstances are not. Has the NF changed any rules, updated their philosophy in any rulebook? Stated anything that we must upgrade or consider all contact as an Intentional or Flagrant Foul anywhere in 2020-2021 Rulebook?
We both know that all contact is not a foul. We both know that severe contact may not be a foul (legal blind screen).

To use your terminology, I "work for" the NFHS. I don't wear two hats like you. I don't work other levels like you. I'm just interested in NFHS high school rules, casebook plays, annual interpretations, and Points of Emphasis.

We also both know this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
... the validity, or lack of validity, of an eight year old NFHS Point Of Emphasis that hasn't been updated recently, that never made it's way into the rulebook, casebook, or a recent annual interpretation, and that no officials with less than eight years of experience may even know about ...
However:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
This is a player control foul. Ball handler Black #10 illegally pushed White #1 with her left arm.
Never did I invoke the 2012-13 Contact Above The Shoulders Point Of Emphasis as a rationale for my call, in fact, I actually shied away from it due to it's controversial status.

I didn't even follow the guidelines of the Point Of Emphasis, my call was a player control foul, not an intentional foul as directed by the Point of Emphasis (probably not moving excessively).

I would have called it this way (a player control foul) before 2012-13.

Ball handler Black #10, with her left arm, illegally pushed White #1 in the jaw, to gain some space while under intense defensive pressure. No eight year old Point of Emphasis needed to make this call. This has been my rationale from the get go, so please stop referring to the Point Of Emphasis.

I might (I'd have to see it, unlike JRutledge, I like to actually see calls to form an opinion) have made the same call if Black #10, with her left arm, had gained some space while under intense defensive pressure by pushing White #1 in the shoulder, or chest.

But of course, you never observed any contact, so according to you it's impossible to have a foul call under any and all circumstances, Point of Emphasis, or no Point of Emphasis, valid, or invalid, and since, according to you, there was no contact, no manner of convincing, no rationale, will change your mind. In fact, you would have to disagree with anyone who stated that the contact didn't warrant a foul, because there was no contact.

And, you may be right (not sarcastic), maybe there was no contact of any type. Maybe the contact shown in the video is just the ball handler's pony tail hitting the defender in the jaw. We really don't get the best angle in the video, that we can agree on.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Apr 25, 2021 at 03:29pm.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 25, 2021, 12:21pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 19,880
IAABO Survey Says …

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

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...1PezsHSw%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a player control foul?

Black #10 may have traveled as she recovered the errant pass into the backcourt. After a slight reach-in by the defender, Black #10 starts her dribble by moving directly toward her defender.

The Trail official does an excellent job of hustling into the backcourt and has an open view of the play as it develops. Our camera angle is not great as we, the viewer, are straight-lined on this contact.

It does appear the dribbler moves her shoulder into the defender's torso, and the defender appears to be displaced. In addition (at 0:32 of the clip), it appears the dribbler also extends her left arm around the neck region of the defender. This is why the player control foul was ruled.

The ruling official incorrectly displayed the team control foul at the site of the foul. Based on our manual, when ruling fouls, we should sound the whistle while raising one arm, with fist clenched, straight up. Then verbalize the color and number of the player who committed the foul. Verbalize the type of foul and give the appropriate signal; in this case, a player control foul signal. When a player control foul is ruled, signal directional toward the basket of the team receiving the ball, then indicate the throw-in spot. (Manual p.68)


Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a player control foul 47%. This is incidental contact 43%. This is a blocking foul 10%.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
out of box bat contact CecilOne Softball 2 Wed Mar 15, 2017 09:36pm
How to contact? PABlue Baseball 3 Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:24pm
When is hair contact a contact? OmniSpiker Volleyball 6 Tue Nov 04, 2008 06:27pm
+ POS---Does anyone have a contact there? jwwashburn Baseball 25 Wed Aug 02, 2006 07:32pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1