Fun With An Off The Ball Foul …
 

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.

Where's Waldo ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Cheat Sheet ...
 

First watched the video without a "cheat sheet".

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

Double 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).

Woman's Prerogative ...
 

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:

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.

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

Scrum Aftermath ...
 

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

Freedom Of Movement ...
 

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.

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

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

Hook And Hold ...
 

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

Well, the "hook and hold" is a type of Flagrant foul at the college level. And if you are so inclined to have a monitor for review, it can be ruled that way based on the video. We do not have such a mandate to call these Intentional or Flagrant here, but they are something we can consider under our rules, just not specifically addressed the same way. It is pretty automatic if you deem a player does a "hook and hold" move at the college level. Without the monitor, we have to make the determination on our own when we see it.

Peace

Rebounding Advantage ...
 

Marginal? Yes. I think that we can agree on that.

But Blue #2's intentionally and illegally extended arm into White #24"s chest kept White #24 three feet farther away from the basket and a possible rebound. This gave a much shorter Blue #2, with an inside position, a possible tremendous rebounding advantage over a much taller White #24.

Of course, White #24 didn't do himself any favors by intentionally and illegally holding on to Blue #2's intentionally and illegally extended arm, creating an ugly "scrum" situation.

And, of course, another problem is that the rebound didn't end up coming that way, so neither player really benefited from any illegal contact advantage.

Maybe the three officials were correct to play on.

Nice video. Lots to discuss and learn.

Be Sure To Get My Good Side ...
 

The only monitors I have in my mid-afternoon middle school games are the cell phone video cameras in the hands of adoring grandmothers.

Want To Come Up And See My Etchings ???
 

And, of course, the cell phone video cameras in the hands of hot, single Moms. I tell them that if they show me their's, I'll show them mine.

Etchings, that is.

I do not have many games with one, but it is allowed and the schools have to put up the equipment to make that happen. I had one last year at one of my D2 contests (doubleheader). Did not know until the second game, but we had one and used it for a particular type of foul situation.

Peace

I did not say the Blue player did not stick his arm out. He did, but that does not mean the contact started with him either. Again, the White player saw the arm and IMO used to to look like he was being pushed when he really was not.

Peace

Rambo On The Forum, Very Cool ...
 

Look at the video again, "First Blood" was Blue #2 intentionally and illegally extending an arm into White #24"s chest, which was followed almost immediately (split second) by White #24 intentionally and illegally latching onto Blue #2's extended arm.

I'm beginning to like a personal double foul more and more every time I watch the video.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=300&h=300

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...Xx1LfmXp9e.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This should be ruled a double foul.

In situations like this, the goal of officials is ty to get the first foul and penalize accordingly. Deciding on what that is was no easy task. The results among respondents are as follows: 26.1% charged Blue 2; 34.8% charged White 24; 26.6% charged double foul. A solid case could be made for any of these responses.

As the play develops, it appears the defender; Blue #2, extends his right arm into the torso on White #24. As this occurs, white #24 grabs the arm of Blue #2. Each of these actions is illegal and warrants a foul.

However, regardless of who fouled when. A key teaching point of this play is the actions of white #24. His approach to the contact would fall into the category of a "fool the official" play. After he grabs the arm of his opponent, he flails his arms upward and embellishes the contact. Officials should be aware that some players will "hook and hold" their opponent and then try to act as if fouled.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: The foul is on White No. 24 35%. This should be ruled a double foul 26%. The foul is on Blue No. 2 26% (including me). There is no foul on this play 13%.

That greater than 10% of the respondents (who have been trained in the same IABO way) viewed this as a "play on" type of action is interesting; leading one to infer that this series of actions wasn't really all that "foul-worthy" to begin with.
However, do you guys ever call a foul on a player for feigning a foul? I know its a foul in the NF rule book (chapter and verse: 10.?.?). But honestly don't think it s ever called, agreeably it would require temerity to do so.

I saw the video and know what I am looking for. I break down a lot of video, more than most. I see the action by the white player first. The blue player sticks his arm out for sure, but the white player starts the sequence by trying to swim the player. Again that is what I see and it is again a "fool the referee" type play. Touching is not a foul. It is displacing or holding or directing an opponent on some level. That did not take place IMO and I do not like the position to call a double foul here. Get the first action.

Peace

Temerity ??? Five Dollar Word (Mark Twain) ...
 

10-4-6-F: A player must not: Faking being fouled.

I've been playing, coaching, officiating, and observing since mid-1960's. Never saw it called.

I'm pretty sure that some Forum members have seen it called (or called it). Others have posted about warning the perpetrator, or calling a "fake" foul on the perpetrator.

Probably see it called more in soccer (flopping).

No Foul On This Play ...
 

I wondered the same thing myself.

There is a play in the IAABO "You Make the Ruling" Vol. 13 video that shows an official actually calling this. But the problem is that there are no parameters in the rulebook as to who to call this or not to call this. The NCAA has addressed this and gives many examples of how to rule on these kinds of plays. Does faking being fouled include embellishment? And if there is contact should this be the remedy?

This is play #4 under the "Block/Charge" section of the USB program BTW.

Peace

Plurality ...
 

Without Blue #2's arm stuck on his chest, maybe White #24 doesn't latch on to it?

35% (a plurality) of the IAABO members that commented on the video agreed with JRutledge.

Kansas Ref: I see your five dollar word, temerity, and raise you another five dollar word, plurality.

I do not see contact until the white player grabs the arm and tries to swim it. Then acts like he was contacted in a way to get you to think he was fouled. Just because you stick your arm out does not mean you fouled someone, even if you touch them. That is why we say see the entire play.

Peace

Number One Answer ...
 

Blink and you will miss it. It was that close ("followed almost immediately (split second)"). Slow the video down and one can clearly but barely see the touch first, and then the latch on.

JRutledge already matched the "number one answer", and should be pleased that his interpretation is agreed upon by many.

The “Gang of Four” IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters seem to imply that both "contacts" occurred at the same time (contradicting both JRutledge and me).

I do not think I missed anything. I saw what I saw and used my judgment to draw a conclusion. IT does not mean that there could not have been a foul at some point with that action, but we are not talking about an action in general, but the specific kind of play. IAABO is asking for an answer in the poll, they are not asking for a breaking down of the video and why you call it one way or the other.

Peace

I like Bob's answer (as usual)...step in and tell them both to knock it off and play on.

Video Breakdown ...
 

Two parts to these play commentaries. Yes, there is a poll, but then there is a video breakdown with "correct" answer based on the combined expertise of four highly respected veteran interpreters (trainers) who have been selected to lead and train this organization of 15,000 basketball officials.

And, yes, sometimes they get it wrong. They themselves have occasionally admitted such.

And yes, often the poll "winners" are wrong.

Note: Not only are IAABO members asked for an multiple choice answer, but in order to answer such, they must give a reason, it's mandatory, not optional.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

13% is nothing to sneeze at, and should probably not be discounted, overlooked, or ignored.

I break down film all the time and get opinions from very experienced officials as well and they sometimes disagree. So why is this new in IAABO? Been to camps where you show a play or explain a play and there are different ways to handle it by the clinicians. This is your organization and you have a right to value their opinion. I met Donnie Eppley this past July and he is a great guy and I would value his opinion if talking to him about these plays. But I work for some guys that are D1 and have a lot of experience and when we have shown plays on other forums, often we hear differing opinions from those individuals. So it is not about who wins a poll, but what took place and the way it was explained to call the play. I did not say I was right or care what others think, I saw this play because I have seen plays like this 100 times and was told how to call it by people I work for or work with. If the contact was by the black player, then call that foul and move on. I am not a fan of double fouls in general. Get the first foul.

Peace

Double Fouls ...
 

Agree 100%. If I do call a rare double foul in a real game (seldom more than one, or two, a season, if that) it's usually in the first period to remind a few knuckleheads (usually bigs fighting for post up dominance, or while rebounding) that I'm watching.

One exception: It's a call that I like to make in preseason scrimmages, usually boys scrimmages. Two opponents trying to fight their way onto the varsity roster, or a earn a starting spot, both trying to impress their coaches during the little scrimmage time they get by puffing out their chests and trying to be the alpha male. Whistle. Double foul. "Cut that out".

Based on all the videos and responses, you'd get greater than 10% answering incorrectly to "Tue or False -- The basketball must be an approves shade of orange, red-orange, or brown"

Pretty Good Cross Section Of All Basketball Officials ...
 

The seven hundred, or so, IAABO members that comment on these videos probably represent a pretty good (but not perfect, those who volunteer to participate may not be the same as those that do not volunteer to participate) cross section of all 15,000 IAABO basketball officials. Those 15,000 IAABO basketball officials probably represent a pretty good (but not perfect) cross section of all basketball officials.

Great basketball officials. Journeymen basketball officials. Poor basketball officials. Varsity basketball officials. Junior varsity basketball officials. Freshmen basketball officials. Middle school basketball officials. Basketball officials with decades of experience. Inexperienced basketball officials. Rookie basketball officials. Basketball officials with great local trainers and training. Basketball officials with average local trainers and training. Basketball officials with below average local trainers and training.

Some with better rules knowledge than others, just like many Forum members would find in their own local or state organizations.