Fun With An Off The Ball Foul …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Xx1LfmXp9e.mp4

Who commits the foul on this play? Observe this play and make a ruling as to which player commits the foul.

Four choices: The foul is on White No. 24. The foul is on Blue No. 2. There is no foul on this play. This should be ruled a double foul.

My comment: The foul is on Blue No. 2. Blue #2 extends his left arm to prevent White #24 from getting a rebound.

[BillyMac]

If one doesn't catch the first foul, one might end up calling a double foul.

Early IAABO member returns are all over the map with all four answers given.

Actually took me a few times through the video to find any foul.

Gotta stop ball watching.

[JRutledge]

I have one foul on this play and it is #24 for grabbing the arm of the opponent and acting like he got pushed. That is a "Fool the referee" play.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have one foul on this play and it is #24 for grabbing the arm of the opponent and acting like he got pushed. That is a "Fool the referee" play.

Peace

Agree. 24 was the only one fouling.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Actually took me a few times through the video to find any foul.

If only the question had given you the number(s) to watch....

On *this* play -- I have no foul because the ball went OOB, so there was no advantage gained.

If the ball had remained live, I have a foul on white for pulling the arm.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If only the question had given you the number(s) to watch ...

First watched the video without a "cheat sheet".

[Raymond]

The first foul is on Blue for sticking his hand into White's chest. White then grabs Blue's hand and fakes being fouled again with a headbob.

NBA referees will tell you that when a player boxes out with his back to the basket, he is usually the first one to do something illegal, most often by using their hands or arms to push our hold back their opponent.

Get the first foul, not the reaction to the first foul.

Lead need to stay as wide as the ball. You don't have to be 2 ft away from action to officiate it. He can officiate the paint while still staying as wide as the ball.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If one doesn't catch the first foul, one might end up calling a double foul.

Originally Posted by Raymond

The first foul is on Blue for sticking his hand into White's chest ... Get the first foul, not the reaction to the first foul.

Agree.

But how "close" do the first foul and reactive contact have to be to consider a double personal foul instead of a single foul?

4-19-8-A: A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Technically, the first foul creates a dead ball (the foul not the whistle), meaning that in order for the reactive contact to be a "foul" (and not ignored) it would have to be a dead ball technical intentional foul, or dead ball technical flagrant foul.

Can't be a double personal foul since both aren't personal. Can't be a double technical foul because both aren't technical. False double?

Ignore the reactive contact because it may not be intentional, or flagrant?

Interesting situation, more complicated than I initially thought. Thinking about it too much will eventually give me a headache.

Keeping it simple, in a real game, in real time, I'm leaning toward two possible interpretations.

In order of preference, single personal foul on Blue #2, or double personal foul on Blue #2 and White #24.

That's my story and I'm probably going to stick to it (until I change my mind).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's my story and I'm probably going to stick to it (until I change my mind).

How about ignore the very first arm into the chest (as the officials did), and call a personal double foul for the "scrum" action of the continued arm to the chest by Blue #2 and the arm grab by White #24?

This (below) may be the best, and simplest, interpretation:

Originally Posted by Raymond

The first foul is on Blue for sticking his hand into White's chest ... Get the first foul ...

Ball becomes dead. Dead ball reactive contact isn't intentional or flagrant. Personal foul on Blue #2. No bonus. White ball on far sideline. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The first foul is on Blue for sticking his hand into White's chest. White then grabs Blue's hand and fakes being fouled again with a headbob.

NBA referees will tell you that when a player boxes out with his back to the basket, he is usually the first one to do something illegal, most often by using their hands or arms to push our hold back their opponent.

Get the first foul, not the reaction to the first foul.

Lead need to stay as wide as the ball. You don't have to be 2 ft away from action to officiate it. He can officiate the paint while still staying as wide as the ball.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My main disagreement here is that the blue player does not actually touch him until the white player takes his arm and does some kind of swim move. Even if blue touched him, there was no displacement at the time. The white player trying to do a football move to look like he was being contacted and it was again a "fool the referee" type play where he wants you to think he was getting held up. Bad technique on the blue player for sure, but the contact was not initiated by him. The blue player certainly should not have his arm out like that, but again the white player takes his arm and tries to make it look like something that is happening and it did not happen IMO.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The blue player certainly should not have his arm out like that, but again the white player takes his arm and tries to make it look like something that is happening and it did not happen ...

Would you consider a double personal foul, maybe not for the initial contact, but for the "scrum" aftermath?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even if blue touched him, there was no displacement at the time.

Agree on no displacement, but it's not always about displacement, sometimes it's about freedom of movement.

10-7 A player must not ... impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s) ...
A player must not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent ...
A player must not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than vertically so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs.

2015-16 NFHS Points Of Emphasis
Rebounding
Any activity to illegally gain rebounding position on an opponent must be properly enforced and penalized.
Some examples of illegal rebounding activity are: Extending the arms or elbows to impede the movement of an opponent.
Rebounders include each player involved in the act, whether an offensive or defensive player.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Would you consider a double personal foul, maybe not for the initial contact, but for the "scrum" aftermath?

Not if I saw it clearly as I did on this video. Again who caused the situation, the white player. So because of that I would basically ignore the actions of the black player in this case. Similar to a "hook and hold" in a college game (and this was a college game it appears).

Peace

[JRutledge]

Billy,

The usage of the term "displacement" is the highlight that nothing influenced the movement or change the direction of the white player (Kind of like saying in the other video the foul was "common" or "normal.") I realize that is not the only reason you call a foul here, but to me the black player did not get a chance to do anything that would warrant a foul. Touching is not a foul. You have to do something as you stated to warrant a foul and the white player was being savvy to try to make it looked like he was being pushed or held in some way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Similar to a "hook and hold" in a college game.

I've heard you Forum college guys use this term before. This certainly turned out to be a hook 'em and hold 'em situation.