new nba shooting foul rules

[thedewed]

if fake someone up but then you jump abnormally, either no call or charge depending on amount of contact. ncaa should do same. shooter must land basically where j u mped from if jump shot. one of exampes with trae nba says is now charge, looked like a no call to me

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

if fake someone up but then you jump abnormally, either no call or charge depending on amount of contact. ncaa should do same. shooter must land basically where j u mped from if jump shot. one of exampes with trae nba says is now charge, looked like a no call to me

The NCAA already has rules and philosophies to not benefit shooters from faking or flopping and even want PC fouls if they contact the defender in a way that displaces them. It has been on the NCAA videos for the last several years now.

Actually, there have been calls about this in the NBA, but I suspect they were not hard fast rules but an interpretation. Now they are stated and no confusion I would suspect to deal with this better.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... shooter must land basically where jumped from if jump shot ...

From a NFHS high school perspective, a rule like this (above) is worded too simply and could be in conflict with existing airborne shooter rules.

If a jump shooter (with some forward momentum) had an open place to land as he goes airborne, he must be able to actually land with no contact by the defender. Defender can't move in late to take away a landing spot, and if so, the responsibility for contact is on the defender.

However, if the defender was in the landing spot before the jump shooter (with some forward momentum) goes airborne, the responsibility for contact is on the shooter (assuming everything else by defender is legal), with advantage/disadvantage applying.

Faking knocks the complexity of the play up a notch, but airborne rules, and advantage/disadvantage, still apply.

Also, NFHS high school rules don't differentiate between jump shots and "other" shots.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From a NFHS high school perspective, a rule like this is worded too simply could be in conflict with existing airborne shooter rules.

Not if you are doing something unnatural. The rules at the NCAA Men's level are exactly the same as the rules at the NF level. the NCAA simply addresses trends in the game directly.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If a jump shooter (with some forward momentum) had an open place to land as he goes airborne, he must be able to actually land with no contact by the defender. Defender can't move in late to take away a landing spot, and if so, the responsibility for contact is on the defender.

The issue is not if they jump forward, the issue is that the defender is going to miss them and the shooter purposely kicks out their leg to make sure they cause contact or even trips the defender that would never had contacted them normally. Just like we do not have rules specifically about a dribbler using their arm to push off or shield a defender, but if there is contact and displacement we consider rightfully so a foul on the ball handler.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

However, if the defender was in the landing spot before the jump shooter (with some forward momentum) goes airborne, the responsibility for contact is on the shooter, with advantage/disadvantage applying.

Faking knocks the complexity of the play up a notch, but airborne rules, and advantage/disadvantage, still apply.

And part of the issue is the faking part. The NCAA addressed this with rules to result in a warning or a straight T (with the rules change) but the NF never has addressed when or how we consider a T for flopping or faking being fouled. So we mostly just call nothing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... something unnatural ... The issue is not if they jump forward ... shooter purposely kicks out their leg to make sure they cause contact ...

10-7-1: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position.

Agree 100% with JRutledge. thedewed's post had a few components, fake, forward movement, and unnatural movement.

I chose to concentrate on just the forward movement component and problems with thedewed's simple rule suggestion.

Originally Posted by thedewed

... shooter must land basically where jumped from if jump shot ...

I think we see most of these unnatural movement (kicking out) plays on the college, or certainly on the professional level, and I decided to let those officials (college and above) comment on such, as JRutledge did.

While some high school players have the ability to execute such, for most high school players it's a little too nuanced and clever, slightly above their pay grade.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... Just like we do not have rules specifically about a dribbler using their arm to push off or shield a defender, but if there is contact and displacement we consider rightfully so a foul on the ball handler.

We don't?

10-7-5: A player must not use the forearm and/or hand to prevent an opponent from attacking the ball during a dribble or when throwing for goal.

Like almost all other fouls, this is subject to advantage/disadvantage.

Contact alone may trigger advantage/disadvantage; displacement would be the cherry on top of the hot fudge sundae.

I normally think of displacement as involving moving an entire body from point A to point B (as in illegal boxing out), but it certainly could mean displacement of a body part, like a defender's arm/hand.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... knocks the complexity of the play up a notch ...

Defender moves in too late, takes away an airborne jump shooter's landing spot, and makes illegal contact with the jump shooter; and at the same exact time the jump shooter kicks out in an abnormal manner to draw a foul from the defender, and in doing so, illegally kicks the defender?

Ball goes in the basket; or ball doesn't go in the basket?

NFHS rules please.

Remember, not all player control fouls are charges.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

if fake someone up but then you jump abnormally ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the faking part. The NCAA addressed this with rules to result in a warning or a straight T (with the rules change) but the NF never has addressed when or how we consider a T for flopping or faking being fouled.

Hard to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that thedewed was referring to the jump shooter shot-faking the defender into the air, and then kicking out a leg to draw a foul.

Of course, there could be two fakes here, the shot-fake, and the "fake" being fouled by the defender due to the abnormal kick out by the jump shooter.

That being said, I think I would view such a (kick out) play in a NFHS high school game as a simple player control foul rather than a technical foul for faking being fouled.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... NF never has addressed when or how we consider a T for flopping or faking being fouled.

10-4-6-F: A player shall not: Faking being fouled.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hard to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that thedewed was referring to the jump shooter shot-faking the defender into the air, and then kicking out a leg to draw a foul.

Of course, there could be two fakes here, the shot-fake, and the "fake" foul by the defender due to the abnormal kick out by the jump shooter.

That being said, I think I would view such a play in a NFHS high school game as a simple player control foul rather than a technical foul for faking being fouled.



10-4-6-F: A player shall not: Faking being fouled.

Does that address the constant flopping and tactics used by players and specifically telling us when or how to address that issue? Simply saying faking being fouled is very subjective. Have you seen a POE or video presentation directly from the NF telling officials when to invoke this rule? Since the answer is no, they have not addressed this the same way the NCAA has. And the NCAA did nothing but show video after video after video to illustrate what they wanted. Even your organization has not to my knowledge taken any direct interpretation to call flopping a technical foul but they will tell you everything about uniforms and legality of sportsmanship, but nothing about when, how or why we call a T for what you just referenced.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...the NF never has addressed when or how we consider a T for flopping or faking being fouled.

Never say never, and never say always.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does that address the constant flopping and tactics used by players and specifically telling us when or how to address that issue? Simply saying faking being fouled is very subjective. Have you seen a POE ... directly from the NF telling officials when to invoke this rule? Since the answer is no ...

Actually, the answer is yes, there was a NFHS Point of Emphasis directly addressing faking being fouled and flopping; and most fouls, including many technical fouls, are subjective, which is why we get paid the big bucks, but I digress.

On the NFHS high school level "faking being fouled" has become an "orphan" rule. Only seven words (already cited) in the rulebook, and nothing in the casebook (and nothing in annual interpretations).

Of course we did get a "one and done" Point of Emphasis, but Points of Emphasis always carry the usual burden of: How are inexperienced officials supposed to know the specifics when lacking a good, experienced trainer?

2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules Points Of Emphasis
Specific unsporting acts. The committee is concerned about the following specific unsporting acts. Coaches, players and officials must pay particular attention to these areas: Flopping. The defensive player or screener acting as though he or she has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he or she has not been, definitely has an impact on the game. It is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. The 'actor" wants to create the false impression that he or she has been fouled in the charging/guarding situation, or while he or she is screening when in either case there is no contact or incidental contact. The 'actor' falls to the court as though he or she were knocked down by the force of the contact. Those actions are designed to have a foul charged to the opponent a foul not deserved. The "flop" also incites spectators. The rules are in place to deal with such activity and must be enforced. A technical foul is charged to the 'actor' in all cases. Coaches can have a positive impact by appropriately dealing with players who fake being fouled. It is not a part of the game. Officials must penalize the act.

We all know that faking being fouled and flopping exist in high school basketball, yet in my forty years of working and observing games, I've never seen a technical foul charged for faking being fouled. In most situations where it could be called, officials will often "bail out" ("bail out" both the actor and the official) with a (possibly) bogus blocking foul, or by calling nothing.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So we mostly just call nothing.

What JRutledge states is sad, but certainly and unfortunately, quite true.

And I guess I'm a part of the problem:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I think I would view such a (kick out) play in a NFHS high school game as a simple player control foul rather than a technical foul for faking being fouled.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In most situations where it could be called, officials will often "bail out" ("bail out" both the actor and the official) with a (possibly) bogus blocking foul, or by calling nothing.

Of course, a defender "embellishing" a true, actual, real player control foul (charge) isn't illegal, it's not needed, but it's still not illegal. The charging foul was real, just the "embellishing" was fake. He's not faking being fouled, he was fouled. Players really seem to enjoy making life difficult for officials. I've known veteran officials to say, "Please don't do that again", to the Academy Award winner.

A defender who is not actually fouled and "embellishes" (fakes) such is a real problem that should be addressed, probably with something with more bite than, "Please don't do that again".

Maybe drop the "please". Just kidding.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by thedewed

if fake someone up but then you jump abnormally, either no call or charge depending on amount of contact. ncaa should do same. shooter must land basically where j u mped from if jump shot. one of exampes with trae nba says is now charge, looked like a no call to me

Does any rules maker actually want to make different provisions for the situation in which a player's fake causes the opponent to move out of position? Has NBA actually done that?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Does any rules maker actually want to make different provisions for the situation in which a player's fake causes the opponent to move out of position? Has NBA actually done that?

The NBA doesn't mention anything specifically about (ball) fakes, but there are changes on the NBA horizon regarding non-basketball actions that initiate contact with a defender.

NBA officiating staffs will be trained to identify and properly rule overt non-basketball actions to initiate contact with defender — such as offensive player launches into defender, abruptly veers off path, kicks leg at abnormal angle, or his off-arm hooks defender. If deemed more than marginal (offensive player's contact impacts the defender's speed, quickness, balance, or rhythm) -- play results in an offensive foul. A no-call should result -- if the contact is deemed marginal.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-to-draw-fouls

Also: The NBA is expected to implement new rules to limit non-basketball moves that would result in an offensive foul or no-call beginning next season. NBA referees will be trained to properly officiate the following actions used to draw fouls: Shooter launches/leans into defender at abnormal angle. Shooter kicks leg at abnormal angle. Offensive player abruptly veers off path (sideways/ backwards) into defender.

The NFHS already seems to have this general principle covered. It will probably eventually pop up as a "one and done" Point of Emphasis.

10-7-1: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... there are changes on the NBA horizon regarding non-basketball actions that initiate contact with a defender.

These new rules, once applied and enforced properly, will hopefully cost (cheater) James Harden some free throw points, and eventually cost him some big bucks the next time he becomes a free agent, and I say "Hear, hear”.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... and I say "Hear, hear”.

Next the NBA should tackle the problem of a few, already rich, superstar players colluding (gotta love capitalism and free enterprise) to form their own "loaded" teams designed to immediately win a championship.

Giannis Antetokounmpo with the small market Milwaukee Bucks was a breath of fresh air in NBA this past season, I actually watched a few games in the final series.

Yeah, I know, wrong time, wrong place, a story for another time and place. Sorry. I was the "biggest" NBA fan back in the 1960's/1970's. Larry Bird and Michael Jordan helped to ease the pain a little, but there was no going back.