The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   At the High School level (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105695-high-school-level.html)

Kansas Ref Thu Mar 24, 2022 09:51pm
At the High School level
 
Case in point,#1 Gonzaga vs. Arkansas NCAA Men's S16, 2nd half, approximately 1:32 mark, Red fouls White after the dribble ended and White had engaged in the customary arm/foot motions associated with a "try for goal". Therefore, in my NF games: "score the basket we're shooting one" as per continuous motion principles.

Case in point #2: same contest, same half, 22 second mark, White displays an "offensive hold" against Red when executing his baseline spin move. This is a garden variety PC in my NF games.

Nevertheless, I do now understand why these cases are adjudicated differently at the NCAA level.

JRutledge Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:22pm
Are they different because of the level or because of the judgment of the particular officials?

Peace

Nevadaref Fri Mar 25, 2022 03:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1047730)
Case in point,#1 Gonzaga vs. Arkansas NCAA Men's S16, 2nd half, approximately 1:32 mark, Red fouls White after the dribble ended and White had engaged in the customary arm/foot motions associated with a "try for goal". Therefore, in my NF games: "score the basket we're shooting one" as per continuous motion principles.

Case in point #2: same contest, same half, 22 second mark, White displays an "offensive hold" against Red when executing his baseline spin move. This is a garden variety PC in my NF games.

Nevertheless, I do now understand why these cases are adjudicated differently at the NCAA level.
Case #1: The Gonzaga player was not pivoting nor had he begun his habitual throwing motion. The foul is definitely prior to the start of a try. However, the circumstances and manner of this foul would warrant an intentional foul at the nfhs level as the foul is clearly done to prevent an easy score.

Case #2: The Lead cannot see this hook (by Timme) and either of the outside officials should have picked it up. There was a similar play about a minute or so prior when Arkansas had the ball which also went uncalled. Additionally, I will point out that Timme was called for a PC due to a much less egregious hook during the first half. It was his first foul of the game.

MechanicGuy Fri Mar 25, 2022 08:29am
The contact on Nembhard's drive was prior to his shooting motion. It continued throughout the motion, but the foul was called before anything resembling a shot had began.

Kansas Ref Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1047732)
Are they different because of the level or because of the judgment of the particular officials?

Peace
*For case #1, the difference was due to the acknowledged use of different rule sets (i.e., NF vs. CCA?).

As for case#2, the difference was ostensibly due the judgement of the particular officials (as you've surmised).

Kansas Ref Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1047733)
Case #1: The Gonzaga player was not pivoting nor had he begun his habitual throwing motion. The foul is definitely prior to the start of a try. However, the circumstances and manner of this foul would warrant an intentional foul at the nfhs level as the foul is clearly done to prevent an easy score.

*The collection of movements after the dribble ended were in association with a "try for goal" ergo, continuous motion principles apply exclusively at the NF level. Yet, with regard to calling that an intentional foul would be s bit zealous, after all there was the colloquial "play on the ball" that occurred in conjunction.

Case #2: The Lead cannot see this hook (by Timme) and either of the outside officials should have picked it up. There was a similar play about a minute or so prior when Arkansas had the ball which also went uncalled. Additionally, I will point out that Timme was called for a PC due to a much less egregious hook during the first half. It was his first foul of the game.
*Well, now given that observation of there must have been apparent inconsistency in application. Interesting.

**my other reply inadvertently embedded with Nevada Refs post, sry format.

Kansas Ref Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechanicGuy (Post 1047734)
The contact on Nembhard's drive was prior to his shooting motion. It continued throughout the motion, but the foul was called before anything resembling a shot had began.
*Exclusively at the NF level, continuous motion principles would apply bcuz dribble ended and the customary movements associated with a try for goal were being executed as the foul was occurring.

bob jenkins Wed Mar 30, 2022 07:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1047838)
*For case #1, the difference was due to the acknowledged use of different rule sets (i.e., NF vs. CCA?).
The rules are the same (at least for practical purposes) between the codes.

I didn't see the play, so I won't opine on whether the "Customary motion" had started.

Raymond Wed Mar 30, 2022 07:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1047843)
The rules are the same (at least for practical purposes) between the codes.
...
I would say NCAA-Men's more restrictively defines what constitutes the shooting motion via the Case Book (A.R. 121). All the other codes basically consider the end the dribble (gathering) as the beginning of the shooting motion.

JRutledge Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1047844)
I would say NCAA-Men's more restrictively defines what constitutes the shooting motion via the Case Book (A.R. 121). All the other codes basically consider the end the dribble (gathering) as the beginning of the shooting motion.
I am going to disagree a little bit. Nothing in the play suggests that the rule application is totally different in that A.R. I see a situation where it appears the player was not shooting and then was fouled, then decided to shoot. That is not so different than the NF position as I see it. Because the motion must be associated with the shot. If they did something else after being fouled, I think that is different no matter the code. Again the NCAA used to use a term, "Upward motion" but that was removed and was primarily used for a line of demarcation for block-charge plays. They got rid of that interpretation when there was too much judgment involved.

I do not see the rule being drastically different in its practice and say that because of the things the NF puts out there or even how the NCAA wants this to be called.

I see the very next play after your reference, this is stated.

Quote:
A.R. 122. A1 drives to the basket, picks up his dribble in his hand(s) and has begun an upward or downward (as in an attempted dunk) motion of his hand(s) when B1 fouls A1. Is the foul by B1 considered to be “in the act of shooting?”


RULING: The act of shooting starts when the player begins the motion that normally precedes the release of the ball on a try for goal. If the official believes that the player is attempting a try (as opposed to a pass/dribble) the upward/downward motion of the hand(s) while holding the ball is normally considered to be a motion that “normally precedes the release of the ball in a try for goal.” (Rules 5-1.10 and 4-8]
Peace

JRutledge Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1047838)
*For case #1, the difference was due to the acknowledged use of different rule sets (i.e., NF vs. CCA?).
CCA is the Mechanics committee that the NCAA uses to apply mechanics and procedures. That is actually not rules. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref (Post 1047838)
As for case#2, the difference was ostensibly due the judgement of the particular officials (as you've surmised).
I have several videos on my Officiating Born Page that shows situations called where the foul is awarded, unlike your description. I can only address what I have seen previously. I think I am going to start posting videos from the NCAA Tournament and this play will be one of them.

Peace

Kansas Ref Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:41pm
Yes, "more restrictively defines..." : that's better phrasing! thanks Raymond.

Thanks for sharing JRutledge, Looking forward to the above-cited, and additional, critical vids.

Indianaref Thu Mar 31, 2022 07:56am
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gang-UL4Qvg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Raymond Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianaref (Post 1047867)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gang-UL4Qvg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There is not a single ref in this forum who hasn't passed on this type of play.

Kansas Ref Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:52pm
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." [John 8:7]

Hey, I'll be the first to confess that I've inadvertently missed this type of foul.

Ok, yes, you're probably right: we have committed such a "sin of omission" by failing to make the unmistakable "offensive holding" call 100% of the time in our respective games of which we officiate. However, a key question is "why" we fail to?
There are at minimum 3 reasons: 1) the display of the foul catches us by surprise, 2) we honestly didn't/couldn't see the foul regardless of 4 eyes or 6 eyes on the action, and 3) we quickly & momentarily weighed whether an advantage was gained by the foul and subconsciously chose to play on.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1