Fun With A Hip Check …

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

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.

What is your point? Seriously. You think people buy what you called here if you use a "block" signal? I don't. I think you might raise more questions of what happened. If you say they "pushed" the opponent, it sells the call much more. Give the signal of what happened, not that confuses the issue.

Peace

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is your point? Seriously. You think people buy what you called here if you use a "block" signal? I don't. I think you might raise more questions of what happened. If you say they "pushed" the opponent, it sells the call much more. Give the signal of what happened, not that confuses the issue.

Peace

Alaskans buy air conditioners, too, so yes, I could sell this as a block. Sorry.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Alaskans buy air conditioners, too, so yes, I could sell this as a block.

[Raymond]

I use block when someone creates illegal contact by putting themselves in the path of an opponent.

I use push when someone uses their body or arms to knock an opponent off their path.

To me, this is clearly the second situation. I am OCD about using the correct signals b/c I don't like to give coaches reasons to question our judgment. Giving incorrect signals allows for such opportunities.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... block when someone creates illegal contact by putting themselves in the path of an opponent ... push when someone uses their body or arms to knock an opponent off their path ...

Well stated. I like Raymond's rule of thumb to differentiate blocks and pushes.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... using the correct signals b/c I don't like to give coaches reasons to question our judgment. Giving incorrect signals allows for such opportunities.

... and we certainly don't want to give coaches any indication that we're guessing, a recipe for a disaster.

As JRutledge stated earlier, I almost always call blocks for illegal screens and block/charge situations, and usually default to pushes for players knocking opponents off their paths.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I use block when someone creates illegal contact by putting themselves in the path of an opponent.

I use push when someone uses their body or arms to knock an opponent off their path.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Alaskans buy air conditioners, too, so yes, I could sell this as a block. Sorry.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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 ... associate that with a block/charge and certainly an illegal screen.

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... just confused someone ... 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Coaches do pay attention to signals.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

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.

I'm okay with either signal for the contact in the video.

[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.