Fun With A Pass And Crash …
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...O0M%2F5w%3D%3D

Is this a Block, Player Control, Charge or No Call Correct? Observe the play and make a decision as to whether this should have been ruled a Block, Player Control, Charge or is it a No Call Correct? Who is responsible for making a judgment on this play - the Center or the Lead? Can the Trail help on this play?

Five choices: This is Player Control foul. This is a Blocking foul. This is a Flop. This is incidental contact (NCC - No Call Correct). This is a Charge.

My comment: This is a Charge. Ball handler Blue #10 releases the ball on a pass and then charges into White #1 who had legal guarding position. Team control foul.

Apparently Redundant Answer ...
 

If one believed that this was a player control foul then one could have answered either player control foul, or charge.

I was initially perplexed by two of the five choices. While I realize that not all player control fouls are charges, it is possible for a player control foul to also be a charge.

Answers could have been presented in a better manner, but after viewing the video one will see why the answers were offered in this manner.

It was this apparent redundant answer that gave me a clue regarding the correct answer before actually viewing the video.

Maybe IAABO wants to highlight that while all player control fouls are team control fouls the reverse is not always true (all team control fouls are not always player control fouls).

A few early returns from IAABO members who have already commented show that a few are confused by this principle.

Maybe IAABO is getting us ready for a possible player control foul signal change by the NFHS.

team control foul. There is no player control during a pass (NFHS 4-12-2b)

Charge ...
 

Not a choice, no "team control foul" bubble to fill in on the slightly confusing IAABO multiple choice answer sheet, but I fully agree with you. Nice citation to piggy back with 4-12-1 (from a negative prospective).

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

Good citation if you are teaching test taking skills.

But since 17% of IAABO officials will think this *is* a PC foul despite the pass, it needs to be a choice.

Say It Ain't So, Joe ...
 

Every year that I taught I gave a lesson on how to make educated guesses when one didn't actually know the correct answer on my multiple choice and matching science unit tests questions. One suggestion was to ask oneself, "Why shouldn't I answer with this choice?", thus narrowing down one's choices (guesses), thus improving one's chances of a correct guess. If the test is asking for name of a scientist, be sure to answer with a name, not something else, like "stalagmite". I wanted my students to learn that there were "bad wrong answers" and "good wrong answers". It's science, a scientific hypothesis is no more than an educated guess.

Let's see if the 17% prediction holds up. I hope that 17% is too high (I'm a rose colored glasses kind of guy), but it might be a good over/under.

Based on this camera angle, I can't tell if the defender's last movement was legal.

I do know that was terrible court coverage. Lead needed to pinch the paint and rotate. Center takes himself out of the play.

Because of the terrible mechanics, we don't know if they passed because of their judgment or passed because they really couldn't see the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Airborne Passer ???
 

Are you saying that White #1 took away airborne Blue #10's landing spot?

If so, you are correct about the camera angle, we can't see if Blue #10 is actually still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hits the floor before the contact.

However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact, or if his right foot hit the floor before the contact, and I don't need a better camera angle (although a different angle is always nice to have).

So a defender can move any way he wants to AFTER A1 becomes airborne as long as he was legal BEFORE A1 became airborne? :confused:

But again, the judgment part of this play is a mouse compared to the elephant of poor mechanics.

Maintained ...
 

Great point, that I believed that I had already answered, but without specifics. By maintaining legal guard position I meant that the defender didn't move toward the airborne ball handler.

I appreciate your comments regarding the mechanics of the play.

With only two real three person games in forty years under my black belt, I wasn't about to offer an opinion on the mechanics as requested by IAABO.

https://live.staticflickr.com/3775/1...8029f778_m.jpg

Not any way, but several ways.

Nothing in the rules says that the defender has to be stationary, even for an airborne opponent. The rules only require that the defender be in the path. If the defender was in the path when A1 became airborne, any subsequent lateral movement or movement backwards doesn't change that. That is just a position adjustment.

There is no change in the ruling if the defender moves from a position that would have lead to contact 3" left of the center of his/her torso to a position with contact 3" right of the center of his/her torso. If the defender was in position to take the charge before the opponent jump, small movements don't usually change that.

The defender can't, however, move toward the opponent into contact as that negates LGP.

Words matter ;)

Words Do Matter ...
 

Agree. Yes they do. I thought that "obtained and maintained" covered it.

While not incorrect, it was, perhaps, too general a statement, one that needed further explanation, and I was happy to oblige for the greater good of the cause.

You used "obtained and maintained" specifically in regards to what happened before A1 went airborne and then used words like "it doesn't matter" in regards to what happens before the contact.


"However, even if Blue #10 was still airborne, my opinion is that White #1 obtained and maintained legal guarding position before Blue #10 became airborne, so to me, it doesn't matter if Blue #10 was still airborne at contact...."

Me, if I'm training someone, I say defender "obtained" LGP BEFORE A1 went airborne and MAINTAINED LGP while A1 was airborne and until contact.

Correction/Clarification ...
 

And you would be saying it correctly.

My initial answer was unclear.

While I knew what I meant, I didn't write what I meant.

Haste makes waste.

Thanks for the correction/clarification, for me, and for the greater good of the Forum cause.

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...O0M%2F5w%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: This is a Charge.

Blue #10 drives into the lane and jumps to pass the ball to a teammate in the lane. The defender obtains a legal guarding position (2 feet on the floor, facing the opponent) before Blue #10 became airborne. (4-23-5d) Since the defender obtained a legal guarding position, Blue #10 is responsible for the contact. In NFHS rules, this would be a team control foul. (4-19-7)

A high percentage of respondents ruled this play to be a player control foul. A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter. (4-19-6) Even though the administration of the penalties is the same as the team control foul, it is not accurate to refer to this as a player control foul. Blue #10 no longer had control of the ball once he released the ball on the pass. (4-12-1, 4-12-2b) Had Blue #10 released the ball on a try for goal instead of a pass and then charged, a player control foul would have been committed by rule.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a Charge 41% (including me). This is Player Control foul 39%. This is incidental contact (NCC - No Call Correct) 13%. This is a Blocking foul 5%. This is a Flop 2%.

Player/Team Control ???
 

Wow! Who bet the over?

What's Going On (Marvin Gaye, 1971) ...
 

Since the administration of the penalties is the same for both team control fouls and player control fouls, in the heat of a real game, it's nothing more than a minor faux pas for an official to give the wrong signal, or the wrong verbal description.

But this isn't in the heat of a real game, it's a video situation that can be played and replayed, and where multiple choice answers point to a differentiation of the two type of fouls, and I am very disappointing in the survey results.

Any official that gets this wrong can still be a great official, a great partner, well respected by assigners, colleagues, coaches, and players, but seeing such poor survey results still leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "What going on?".

For the record, at the NCAA Men's level and under the CCA Mechanics, the signal for TC and PC fouls are exactly the same. It is the hand behind the head no matter what kind of foul you are calling. Terminology is different, but it must be noted that the officials are not supposed to just point as in the past.

Peace

Certs, Two Mints In One ...
 

... a candy mint and a breath mint.

I believe tht the NFHS Rules Committee had a suggestion on the table to have one signal for both, but it was the "punch" signal.

We'll find out in a few weeks if the suggestion was approved.

Anticipation (Carly Simon, 1971) ...
 

Last year's 2020-21 high school basketball rule changes were announced by the NFHS on May 11, 2020.

Can you feel the anticipation in the air?

Here is the CCA Manual change that took place this year.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...=278&crop=fill

Peace

Willy-Nilly ...
 

Thanks JRutledge.

Because of confusion with the “count the basket” signal the fist punch signal has been eliminated.

I'm pretty sure that the NCAA/CCA didn't just come up with this change Willy-nilly in an unplanned, haphazard fashion, and based it on some rational thought.

So why did the NFHS ignore this careful and thoughtful NCAA/CCA decision and decide to explore the possibility of doing just the opposite (fist punch)?

There were several plays in the NCAA tournament where the officials looked like they might have been counting the basket, but were calling PC fouls without a hand behind their head. So this helped change the mechanic. It was hard to do for things like Illegal screens but I got there kind of eventually.

Peace

Did The NFHS Just Flip A Coin ???
 

I understand the rationale, and recall a Forum thread about that, with some videos.

So why did the NFHS ignore those NCAA/CCA reasons for the change and go down the road not taken, exploring the possibility of just using the punch signal, and eliminating the NCAA/CCA favored hand behind the head signal, going against all rational thought?

Of course, I'm jumping the gun here, we'll have to wait a few weeks to see what the NFHS decides to do, if anything, with these PC/TC signals.

https://prodimage.images-bn.com/pima...2_s550x406.jpg

Doesn't the NF want to be unique?

Peace

Unique ...
 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Robert Frost, 1915

NCAA-Women's does not use the same signals for offensive fouls that NCAA-Men's do, so it's not as simple as copying what the NCAA does. Each organization does what they feel like doing.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others ...
 

... One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?

So it's possible that the NCAAM will be the odd man out.

Interesting.

Each committee does not give a crap what the other one does. They worry about their game and their game only for the most part. As should be expected. That is why women has quarters and men have halves. They have different concerns.

Peace

Birds And Bees ...
 

JRutledge is in a much better position than me to understand the complexities of NCAA men's and women's differentiated rules and mechanics.

But I would think that they are, at least, aware of what the other is doing and, for reasons benefiting each, choosing either do the same, or not to do the same.

It is often opined on the Forum that NCAA rules often trickle down to the NFHS. When one looks at all three groups, NFHS, NCAAM, and NCAAW, there might be tiny little bit of "cross pollination" going on.

There's probably more in common between NFHS basketball, NCAAM basketball, and NCAAW basketball, than there are differences between them.

If a being from Jupiter were to land here and watch all three games for the very first time, it would take him a very long time to note subtle differences, certainly longer than it would take him to note that the line at the women's restroom is much longer than the line at the men's rest room, and that concession stand beer is more expensive than beer purchased at a store.

NCAA-Women's mechanics are more in line with the NBA than they are with NCAA-Men's.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The Men's level trickles down to the high school level more often IMO. Women's basketball is often trying to align with the NBA which has their own ideas of things. That is why they went to quarters for the most part and many of their coverage areas are similar to the NBA.

Peace

I'm curious why women's basketball is trying to copy the NBA. Is it because the mechanics and/or coverage ideas that the NBA uses are better for the women's game, or is it because the officiating movers and shakers have an NBA background (looking at you, Violet Palmer) and are trying to re-create something familiar?

Anyway, when I saw the video on RefQuest, I answered team control foul, because the player no longer had possession when he crashed into a legally positioned defender. I was surprised that the Lead did not call that, because he seemed to be in good position based on the video.

He may have felt it wasn't worth a whistle. Or it may have caught him by surprise. I wish he would have rotated, that way we would know for sure that he saw the play completely and his lack of a whistle would be based on his judgment, and not the possibility he didn't see the play clearly.

In my opinion this was either a block or a no call. Why? In my opinion, the defender does move, just slightly to a different position once the UCLA player has gone airborn and he does maintain the newly established position in the landing spot of the airborn player.

On a side note, as a fan, I don't like seeing a very questionable call with 14 seconds left in the game deciding a Sweet 16 game. (As a Michigan fan, I wish the call had been a team control foul and no basket, as I think Michigan would have had a better chance vs Alabama).

Nothing says the defender can't move. The rule says the defender can't move "into the path" after the opponent is airborne. It is incorrect to call a block on a player for a slight movement that doesn't change the player's position relative to being in the path.