That sounds wonderful in theory and you might be able to get away with it some of the time, but the reality is this is a foul someone is not looking at. So you called an off-ball foul, to begin with and then you give a signal that is associated with other kinds of contact on a regular basis. So now you have just confused someone that did not see the play. At least with a push, someone can at least admit they did not see that but understand why a foul was called. A block signal is just like what I said, there are people that associate that with a block/charge and certainly an illegal screen. Neither took place here and that might be why a coach would go crazier. Clearly, the player knocked the other out of the way if you have a foul, call something that reflects that. This is also why I accompany any foul call with more than just the signal, but exactly what they did as well with my voice.

Peace

Cheery On The Hot Fudge Sundae ...
 

While I have kind of agreed with JRutledge throughout this thread, this statement (possibly one of JRutledge's best posts ever) puts the cheery on the hot fudge sundae. I can almost hear a coach screaming, "Block? On THAT play?", before being invited to sit on a cold bus in the parking lot.

And after doing so for forty years, I've finally figured out why I often default to "push" when the exact nature of the contact, while clearly illegal, is kind of blockish/pushish.

On the other hand, I kind of also agree with Mike Goodwin's idea that "one man's push is another man's block" (my quote). Anybody who rides on dog sleds, or flies on puddle-jumper planes, to officiate games hundreds of miles away, when the temperature is below zero and it's snowing, and can sell air conditioners and refrigerators to Alaska Natives, deserves some credibility.

http://www.cfinotebook.net/graphics/...r/skiplane.jpg

This is a "Do what your supervisor or local association wants you to do" situation.

Honestly do what works, but every year I have people at camp tell someone about the believability of signals we give. And give the proper action and not default to the same signal for every kind of foul no matter what. And those camps I am referring to are with people from multiple states and backgrounds. So if that works in Alaska, more power to you. But we teach being more specific and not using a block for this kind of foul? Does that mean someone is going to do that on this kind of foul? Of course. But if evaluated someone might point it out to them. No biggie.

Peace

I'm with Raymond. If the illegal contact primarily keeps an opponent from legal movement, it's a block. If the illegal contact primarily moves an opponent from a legally obtained position, it's a push.

Calmed Down The Coach ...
 

Many years ago, I had a ball handler push off a defender during a last second outside desperation heave shot before halftime right in front of her coach (as the Trail, I had straight-lined him from seeing the foul). I stupidly, but correctly, gave the behind the head player control foul signal and stated, "Player control," after the whistle. The coach started going nuts until I reported and gave both the player control foul signal and the push signal, emphasizing a one handed (improvised, but still incorrect) push signal with only my left hand (the hand she pushed with) and loudly stated, "Pushed off the defender".

Luckily, that calmed down the coach. He still didn't like the call, but he calmed down enough to avoid a technical foul.

To extrapolate from JRutledge's point, most coaches associate the player control foul signal with only block/charge situations, it's wrong, but something all good officials should be aware of.

I am not saying that per se. I think people know that when you give the PC foul you are calling it on the offensive player. It is almost irrelevant what the foul is because it is rarer and results in the same thing, you lose the ball. And with the new change, the signals are the same so it really is not confusing that much. That never seemed to cause the same confusion if I called a push-off on a dribbler. Coaches knew it was just a foul on the ball handler. We also gave similar signals anyway for illegal screens if called.

Peace

Hand Behind The Head ...
 

While, obviously 100% true, many coaches, players, and fans here in my little corner of Connecticut usually see the hand behind the head player control foul signal in the aftermath of a block/charge situation, and thus often associate that signal (incorrectly) with only such specific situations.

JRutledge is correct in that coaches, players, and fans will be seeing a lot more hand behind the head signals (both player control and team control) and will eventually figure that the hand behind the head signal is for any "offensive" type foul, for example, an illegal screen.

Of course, that assumes that individuals and local and state associations will follow the new NFHS signal chart. I've heard through the grapevine that many local and state associations will stick with the "stronger" team control punch for team control fouls.

And to confuse matters even more, in the past, many individuals and local and state associations have never used the hand behind the head player control signal, using the "punch" signal for both player control fouls and team control fouls.

In the past, individual officials here in my little corner of Connecticut have used as many different player control foul signals (often variations of a "punch") as Carter has little liver pills, with evaluators and assignment commissioners overlooking and allowing such individual differences as variations in "style".

I'm interested in seeing what happens next season regarding player control fouls signals and team control fouls here in my local area.

Once again, as usual, when in Rome ...

I was not referencing the "hand behind the head" mechanic. For the record both the NCAA and the NF have stopped using different signals for TC and PC fouls. The funny thing is both have decided on different signals. My point is either way people are not confused when we call a PC foul even if it is not a block/charge play.

Peace

Different Strokes For Different Folks (Sly And The Family Stone, 1969) ...
 

I'm not one of those guys that believes that all rule and mechanics sets (NFHS and NCAA) for different levels (high school and college) must be the same (easy for me to say as an "only" high school official who watches very little college basketball on television), but I do find it odd that the NFHS and the NCAA ended up 180 degrees apart on this issue.

I thought the purpose of doing away with the the "punch" was to keep it from being confused with "count the basket".

Label me, "Confused in Connecticut".

The answer is simple. The NCAA does not care what the NF does. And certainly not the CCA committee.

Peace

Punch Confused With Count Basket ...
 

I don't care if they don't talk to each other, but I do care about the rationale.

Who was it that originally believed that the "punch" could be confused with "count the basket"?

From my reading of Forum threads over the past few years, I thought that it was the NCAA that was originally worried about such confusion, yet they, unlike the NFHS, decided not to act on it.

That's what confused me (if my facts are straight).

Or maybe signal confusion has absolutely nothing to do with the recent NFHS signal change?

The official signals were also modified to use the same hand signal for a player control foul and a team control foul. Officials should use Signal 36, which is a hand placed at the back of the head, for both types of fouls. Previously, a team control foul was communicated with a punch of the hand. “It is redundant to have different signals to communicate that a foul will be charged to a member of the team in control of the ball,” Wynns said. “Officials don’t understand the need to differentiate between a player control foul and a team control foul, and many game participants, table personnel and fans don’t know the difference.” The committee reviewed various changes that had been both made and requested at a variety of levels of basketball and determined that all player and team control fouls should utilize signal 36 (the hand behind the head) rather than the previous mechanics that utilized Signal 37 (the extended fist) for a team control foul. The proper sequence for either of these calls will now be signal 4 to indicate a foul, the use of the same arm to give signal 36 to indicate a player or team control foul, followed by signal 6 indicating the direction in which the ball will be put in play and then signal 7 to indicate the throw-in spot.

And maybe the NCAA figured that any slight possibility of signal confusion didn't warrant a signal change?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.G...=0&w=300&h=300

Signal Redundancy ...
 

Maybe the NFHS simply saw some signal redundancy and fixed it, with the change having absolutely nothing to do with (punch/count basket) signal confusion.

Meanwhile, the NCAA studied the (punch/count basket) signal confusion matter and simply decided that the slight possibility of (punch/count basket) signal confusion didn't warrant the elimination of the punch signal.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.T...=0&w=317&h=179

Not in each organizational meeting to know why each do different things, but the NCAA likes to address things directly and puts stuff out. The NCAA had several situations in the NCAA Tournament where an official gave the "punch" and looked like the official was calling a "count the basket.

From my reading of Forum threads over the past few years, I thought that it was the NCAA that was originally worried about such confusion, yet they, unlike the NFHS, decided not to act on it.

Didn't I say

That's what confused me (if my facts are straight).

You tend to worry about things that no one else worries about. I have no idea what you are confused by, just pointing out that the CCA made the change. Who decided first to make such a change is not something I worry about. I know the CCA meets multiple times during the year according to someone on the committee (I happened to work for).

Do you read stuff before you write them multiple times?

Peace

It was NCAA Men's who thought the punch signal was confusing. So NCAA Men's got rid of the pet single for all theme control files and went to behind the head.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Curiosity Killed The Cat ...
 

JRutledge: Thanks for confirming that for me.

Because I'm strictly a high school official, but am still curious about some NCAA "stuff", JRutledge and Raymond have now totally confused me.

NFHS: One signal (hand behind head) for both player control and team control fouls (that I'm certain of).

NCAA Men: One signal (hand behind head) for both player control and team control fouls (according to Raymond, "went to behind the head").

NCAA: One signal (punch) for both player control and team control fouls (according to JRutledge, "both (NFHS and NCAA) have decided on different signals").

Maybe I'm confused because of a possible difference between NCAA Men and NCAA Women?

Help. I'm curious and I can't get up.