Fun With Two Push Offs …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...kOk89aDg%3D%3D

Is this offense initiated contact correctly ruled to be incidental? Do the dribblers illegally use their arms and hands to contact the defensive players?

Two choices: This is offense initiated contact and should have been ruled a foul. This is incidental contact - no foul.

My comment: This is offense initiated contact and should have been ruled a foul. Tough calls. Ball handler Blue #5 pushes defender White #22 with left arm. Ball handler Blue #12 pushes defender White #2 with right arm. While the second contact appears more egregious than the first, in both cases the ball handlers are attempting to gain an advantage by creating more space and both should be ruled player control fouls.

[Raymond]

We have no way of knowing if the second push off would have been called by the officials on the court because nobody was in a position to see the play.

The Trail official stood in one spot and made no attempt to referee the play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

The first contact *might* have been incidental -- contact was made, but the defense was already backing up and wasn't further displaced; it's more of a "matching" call (if the crew has called this contact before, get it here, if this contact has been allowed, let it go.

The second was not incidental

[ilyazhito]

The first contact appears to be incidental, as the defender's RSBQ is not affected, and it is unclear whether the offensive player's arm is extended. However, the second contact is a foul and needed to be called.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The first contact *might* have been incidental -- contact was made, but the defense was already backing up and wasn't further displaced; it's more of a "matching" call (if the crew has called this contact before, get it here, if this contact has been allowed, let it go.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The first contact appears to be incidental, as the defender's RSBQ is not affected, and it is unclear whether the offensive player's arm is extended.

Agree that the first contact was "iffy". I'm real big on not allowing a dribbler to use the non-dribbling arm to intentionally make contact and ward off a defender. It almost always provides the dribbler with some type of a slight, but still illegal, advantage, like preventing a reach-in attempt at a steal, adding some slight extra layer of illegal protection for the ball. If I decide to pass on a player control foul in this scenario, at the next opportunity I will usually advise such a dribbler to, "Cut it out".

In forty years of working middle school games, especially "junior varsity" middle school games, I've heard a lot of coaches complain that dribblers can't intentionally hold out their non-dribbling arm to ward off a defender and to protect the ball, to which I've replied, "Yes they can, until the dribbler intentionally contacts the defender, or the defender illegally contacts the dribbler. No contact, no foul".

[Kansas Ref]

Coaches wi invariably shout: "hay ref call it both ways!' and also probably tell you to "stop coaching the players and ref the game!"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... "stop coaching the players and ref the game!"

Warnings to players (and coaches) are usually considered appropriate steps in good game management. But there are limits and gray areas delineating coaching and warning. Check you local listings.

[JRutledge]

I do not see anything that stands out. It could be, but nothing happened to cause and advantage. Both times the defender stood right in front of the ball handler and each time they stopped moving towards the basket. Probably not calling anything. But I agree that none of the officials looked like they were in a great position. So kind of glad they did not guess.

Peace

[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...kOk89aDg%3D%3D

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is offense initiated contact and should have been ruled a foul.

Officials have made great strides in recent years of applying rule 10-7-12 and penalizing illegal contact committed on ball handlers. However, officials still have a significant opportunity to improve penalizing illegal contact committed by ball handlers. In this play, we have two very good examples of dribblers illegally contacting defenders. At 0:03 of the clip, As dribbler Blue #5 slows down to look to pass the ball to a teammate, she extends her left arm into the torso of White #22. The contact displaces White 22 and momentarily creates space between the offensive and defensive player. At 0:08, Blue #12 dribbles toward the lane and extends her right arm into the torso of White #2. This contact also displaces her opponent. Nearly 80% of respondents would have correctly ruled a player control foul on the ball handlers in this play. (10-7-3, 10-7-5, 4-19-6)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is offense initiated contact and should have been ruled a foul 80% (including me). This is incidental contact - no foul 20%.