Fun With A Hip Check …
 

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.

Cannot see the link.

Peace

Working Link ...
 

Sorry. I fixed it. Please try again.

Fists ...
 

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.

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

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

One Man's Push Is Another Man's Block ...
 

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.

Game Management ...
 

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.

Coaches Do Pay Attention To Signals ...
 

After a defender causes illegal contact trying to block a shot, and a coach misses my preliminary signal, as I'm on my way to the reporting area I can see the coach ready to erupt like a volcano, with an "all ball" look in his eyes, until I report a block, or a push, instead of an illegal use of hands, and then he calms down instantly (at least, in theory).

Coaches do pay attention to signals.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.I...=0&w=188&h=164

Signals ...
 

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

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

Great Salesman ...
 

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.

Rule Of Thumb ...
 

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

... 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.

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.

I work NCAA-Men's and always defer to Bob and others when it comes to NCAA-Women's. I always make sure to reference Men's when I talk about the NCAA.

NCAA Women ???
 

Maybe JRutledge was referring to NCAA Women ("both (NFHS and NCAA) have decided on different signals")?

I do not work women's basketball and do not care about women's basketball. The NCAA Men's Basketball is the only basketball that makes money and has well-known changes. Women's basketball is so busy trying to be the NBA, they often only do what the NBA does.

BTW, this was in the CCA Manual for 2020-2021.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

But thanks for playing.

Peace

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

One should not confuse worrying with curiosity.

What confuses me is that while all appear to agree that the NFHS and the NCAA have both decided on one signal for both team control fouls and player control fouls, JRutledge has stated that the NCAA signal is different than the NFHS signal (which must mean punch for NCAA and hand behind head for NFHS), but Raymond has stated that NCAA-M signal and the NFHS signal are the same (hand behind head).

If JRutledge is referring to the NCAA-W signal as being different than the NFHS signal (with the NCAA-W signal a punch), than I'm no longer confused, or I am no longer confused if JRutledge is mistaken about the NCAA signal being different than the NFHS signal. Or, Raymond might be mistaken (though he seemed confident in both of his posts).

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.F...=0&w=376&h=174

Both Have Decided On Different Signals ...
 

Then please explain to me how the single team control/player control NCAA signal is different than the NFHS single team control/player control signal, or was Raymond or JRutledge mistaken?

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds

Sure looks the SAME (as in not DIFFERENT) as the NFHS signal.

You are posting the signal from NCAA-Men's CCA Manual, so why are you asking if I'm mistaken?

Benefit Of A Doubt ...
 

Sorry. No offense intended, just giving somebody else the benefit of a doubt as I struggle to decipher, "the funny thing is both have decided on different signals".

Sorry to drag you into this, but thanks for your enlightening (and confirming) posts.

NCAA Rule Expert ...
 

Got a bee in my bonnet because I used this quote above, from somebody I consider an NCAA rule expert, this morning during a live You Tube presentation (with at least three Forum members in attendance) on new 2021-22 NFHS rules and mechanics to (erroneously) point out that while the NFHS decided to go with the hand behind the head, the NCAA went a "different" way with the punch. Now it's too late to go back and say that I was mistaken (which I am more than willing to do).

But it's still not too late for somebody else to say that they were mistaken.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k...=0&w=300&h=300

My reference or comment to different signals was the idea that they would stop using the TC and PC signals for those different types of fouls. I was not trying referencing to what the NF did in comparison to or why. The NCAA did decide to make a change first and did so because of their issues with confusion in their high-profile situations. Also, the NCAA shows a full procedure, the NF at this time only shows one signal (according to their Pre-Season Guide made by NASO). It is a little different and really not the point I was trying to make here. Not worried about why different organizations want to do something they see fit. Different participants and different officials.

Peace

You shouldn't be broadcasting about a rules set without verifying for yourself the the information you are giving out.

Stay In One's Lane ...
 

Lesson learned. Even when curious, and adventuresome, I need to stay in my high school lane.

https://shareitsfunny.com/wp-content...ed-the-cat.jpg

Reading And Writing Are Fundamental ...
 

Two sentences were posted, not one sentence.

Hand Behind Head ...
 

Because one is a signal and the other is a signal sequence. Stick to the actual signal and both are essentially the same signal (hand behind head). I doubt that the NFHS doesn't want us to stop the clock and point the direction. Probably also wants us to point to the throwin spot and signal the type of contact as part of our preliminary signal and/or reporting signal (team control illegal screen block, player control push/charge, etc.).

I would still like this quote deciphered, or described simply as a poorly worded written communication mistake.

Not Carved In Stone ... ...
 

Just checked the edited "final" version on You Tube. My original comment did state, "not sure", so while still embarrassing, not too embarrassing.

Also fell on my sword in the new comments section.

But I still need to stay in my lane.

When I make a mistake (in basketball and in life), I acknowledge the mistake, apologize, and correct it.

NFHS Signal Sequence ...
 

Suggest that one saves and enlarges to read.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...87216e51_m.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...139df9ab_m.jpg

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

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

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a foul for illegal contact.

When the NFHS first adopted the rebounding rule (4-37), it was derived from the guarding rule 4-23. Officials need to understand specific guidelines for a player to obtain a legal rebounding position.

To obtain or maintain a legal rebounding position, a player may not:
a. Displace, charge or push an opponent.
b. Extend shoulders, hips, knees, or extend the arms or elbows fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms or elbows occurs.
c. Bend his/her body in an abnormal position to hold or displace an opponent.
d. Violate the principle of verticality.

In this play, White #20 is moving into the lane when he displaces Red #10. This contact impacted Red #10's ability to secure the rebound and was correctly ruled a foul by the Center official.

In this play, the Center's primary responsibility is to stay with the shooter, making an attempt near the sideline in her PCA. After she is confident the shooter is back to the floor without being contacted by the defender, she turns her attention back toward the lane and observes the illegal contact. With the Center having a try from her PCA, The Trail official should be responsible for the flight of the ball and any infractions at the ring. The Lead should stay focused on the rebounders and be responsible for any illegal contact in the lane area. (IAABO Manual p. 158-159)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a foul for illegal contact 86% (including me). This is not a foul and the play should have continued 14%.