Unusual

[WinterWillie]

Big rivalry game. Very close score. The center for team A puts up shot from below foul line. The ball bounces around the rim
and falls in. He turns around in jubilation and throws his fist into the air, straight up to celebrate. A defensive player who was directly behind him, catches the fist on his chin and falls to the floor. What's your call.

[One-Whistle]

There are so many variables that would play into how this could be called.

Things to consider: Did you follow the player(s) action up until this incident? Was there previous conflict between the players involved? How has the flow of the game been to this point?

I would probably lean toward a common foul, unless I felt there was "bad blood" then I would escalate it to a Flagrant Foul.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by One-Whistle
There are so many variables that would play into how this could be called.

Things to consider: Did you follow the player(s) action up until this incident? Was there previous conflict between the players involved? How has the flow of the game been to this point?

I would probably lean toward a common foul, unless I felt there was "bad blood" then I would escalate it to a Flagrant Foul.

If the ball was not at the disposal of the inbounding team
at the time of the contact,the ball is dead and you can't have a common foul.

[Bart Tyson]

Lets seeee fist to chin, player down, hhhmmmm I think flagrant. "fist in air, straight up"-?

[One-Whistle]

Originally posted by blindzebra

If the ball was not at the disposal of the inbounding team
at the time of the contact,the ball is dead and you can't have a common foul.

Slow down, read the original post... No where does WinterWillie indicate that the ball is dead or live. You are making an assumption (as I did, in the timing of the "celebration"). The ball is dead (as it would be after the made basket; NFHS 6-7-1, until it is at the inbounder's disposal; NFHS 6-2-1c) then it is obvious that a common foul is not applicible.


Then again, after I re-read the original post. No comment was made to indicate that contact was made. It could be a total "flop" and the oppenent could be assessed a Technical Foul for an unsporting act (NFHS 4-19-13) or it could be a "no call."

This is why I included the header.. Had to be there...

[ace]

That is a really tough call to make without seeing it. Obviously there was no intention to hit the player behind him. He reacted to his shot and accidently nailed a guy in the face. Your gunna have to whislte the play for injury i assume. Gut instinct says you should have tossed him with a flagrant foul for making contact with the fist (incidental or not) or give him an unsporting T for excessive celebration/taunting/etc? Or you could just no-call it, I want to know how the coach for the guy who get hit responded.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by One-Whistle
[/B]

Slow down, read the original post.

Then again, after I re-read the original post. No comment was made to indicate that contact was made.


[/B][/QUOTE]I read the original post. Then I re-read it. Both times it stated "A defensive player, who was directly behind him , catches the fist on his chin and falls to the floor." That sure sounds like contact was made to me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
Big rivalry game. Very close score. The center for team A puts up shot from below foul line. The ball bounces around the rim
and falls in. He turns around in jubilation and throws his fist into the air, straight up to celebrate. A defensive player who was directly behind him, catches the fist on his chin and falls to the floor. What's your call.

This is one of those had to be there and see it plays. Having said that, lets make a few assumptions.

If there have been no problems with the teams so far in the game regarding taunting and the such, you have two courses of action depending upon whether the ball is live or dead.

1) If the ball is dead when the contact occurs, you have nothing but and injured player.

2) If the ball is live when the contact occurs, I would still be inclined to say that this is incidental contact and all you have is an injured player.


If you have been problems with the teams during the game I would be inclined to call this a flagrant foul (technical if the ball is dead; personal if the ball is live).

[footlocker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
This is one of those had to be there and see it plays. Having said that, lets make a few assumptions.

If there have been no problems with the teams so far in the game regarding taunting and the such, you have two courses of action depending upon whether the ball is live or dead.

1) If the ball is dead when the contact occurs, you have nothing but and injured player.

2) If the ball is live when the contact occurs, I would still be inclined to say that this is incidental contact and all you have is an injured player.


If you have been problems with the teams during the game I would be inclined to call this a flagrant foul (technical if the ball is dead; personal if the ball is live).

I agree. MTD and one-whistle are right. Had to be there. These applications of the rules seem right to me.

[dblref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This is one of those had to be there and see it plays. Having said that, lets make a few assumptions.

If there have been no problems with the teams so far in the game regarding taunting and the such, you have two courses of action depending upon whether the ball is live or dead.

1) If the ball is dead when the contact occurs, you have nothing but and injured player.

2) If the ball is live when the contact occurs, I would still be inclined to say that this is incidental contact and all you have is an injured player.


If you have been problems with the teams during the game I would be inclined to call this a flagrant foul (technical if the ball is dead; personal if the ball is live).

Why would this make a difference in the call, or non-call? It doesn't change what happened. I really don't know what I would have called, but I don't understand why the call would depend on what did/did not take place earlier.

[Bart Tyson]

I can understand taking the game into account when deciding the type of foul. We make many foul calls where the player didn't mean to foul. So, I don't believe this should be any different. At the very least I think a common foul is necessary.