Fun With A Hip Check …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...w%2B0UYg%3D%3D

Is this illegal contact during this rebound action? Which official should be responsible for this contact in the lane area while a ball is in flight during a try for goal?

Two choices: This is a foul for illegal contact. This is not a foul and the play should have continued.

My comment: This is a foul for illegal contact. White #20 “hip checked” and displaced Red #10.

[JRutledge]

Cannot see the link.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Cannot see the link.

Sorry. I fixed it. Please try again.

[BillyMac]

From a nit-picker perspective. Nice to see an official put hands on hips instead of fists on hips. I've been trying to do it the correct way for years, with little success. Best I can do is fist on hips at site of foul and hands on hips at reporting area.

Yeah, I'm aware that this is nit-picking, and definitely a local "thing", but I figure that when given a choice between the right way and the wrong way, I might as well try the right way.

Besides giving evaluators one less thing to pick on, it sets a good example for young'un officials.

Of course, as usual, when in Rome ...

Also for young'uns, leave the ball alone. I've been doing this for forty years and have never lost a ball. Not even once.

[JRutledge]

The angle is horrible for us. It looks like there is some contact and they came together, but not sure how much. The C in this case had a much better look and angle. I guess it is a foul, but I would also suggest that the signal for the foul was flawed. It was not a "block" It was a push if that is the call. Undermines the credibility of what happened. Most people associate a "block" with some kind of facing-up action like an illegal screen or a defender getting in the way to the basket.

Peace

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess it is a foul, but I would also suggest that the signal for the foul was flawed. It was not a "block" It was a push if that is the call. Undermines the credibility of what happened. Most people associate a "block" with some kind of facing-up action like an illegal screen or a defender getting in the way to the basket.

Peace

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

While a player can push using other parts of their body, I generally use the "pushing" signal when a player uses their hands to commit the foul. I'm okay with the block signal here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... suggest that the signal for the foul was flawed. It was not a "block" It was a push if that is the call ... Most people associate a "block" with some kind of facing-up action like an illegal screen or a defender getting in the way to the basket.

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

Agree. I believe that JRutledge is correct in that most blocks are illegal screens or a block/charges.

However, I may sometimes give a block signal if a player uses their entire body (not just an arm) to cause illegal contact as in the "hip check" in this video.

In situations where I have a choice of signals, I will often default to a push.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... signal ... Undermines the credibility of what happened ...

Agree. Some officials are "sloppy" with signals, nonchalantly figuring that a foul in the book is a foul in the book no matter what type of foul it was.

What such officials don't realize is that many coaches do pay attention to the type of foul called and signaled, and giving the correct signal can sometimes deescalate a game management issue before it even begins.