block/charge

[RookieDude]

Nothing A does can exonerate B if he was responsible for the contact

Daryl...The thread started out with A1 PUSHING B1 while A1 was in the air. IMO A1 was responsible for the contact first, since A1 "pushed" B1 before any prior contact had been made.




[Edited by RookieDude on May 24th, 2004 at 02:22 AM]

[oc]

Originally posted by RookieDude

Daryl...The thread started out with A1 PUSHING B1 while A1 was in the air. IMO A1 was responsible for the contact, since A1 "pushed" B1 before any contact had been made.

In the play in question I was B1 playing in a jerk ball game (rec ball). I was called for a block and didn't like the call as A1 saw me there and led with his elbow into my chest. (I thought I had gotten postion before A1 jumped as well but that's probably biased thinking-and not relevant to my question.) Thinking about the play later from an objective point of view I was wondering whether or not I might have called it exactly the same-blocking foul on myself.

Here is the question again. If B1 does not have a legal guarding position-but airborne A1 puts their opposite arm or elbow out to push B1-who initiated the contact and is called for the foul?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by oc

In the play in question I was B1 playing in a jerk ball game (rec ball). I was called for a block and didn't like the call as A1 saw me there and led with his elbow into my chest. (I thought I had gotten postion before A1 jumped as well but that's probably biased thinking-and not relevant to my question.) Thinking about the play later from an objective point of view I was wondering whether or not I might have called it exactly the same-blocking foul on myself.

Here is the question again. If B1 does not have a legal guarding position-but airborne A1 puts their opposite arm or elbow out to push B1-who initiated the contact and is called for the foul?

You basically have two wrongs happening. Was the contact severe? Was B1 more or less vertical, even if LGP was not obtained prior to jumping?

From what you described, my first impression is a no-call, then PC, unless B1 was really coming hard at A1, I can't see this as a block.

[canuckrefguy]

Oh my, this is a slam dunk.

A1 initiated the contact, therefore PC. It's important not to over-think it.

Lots of times we have situations where a dribbler is driving, with a defender trying to stay with them. You're thinking the whole time, "get ready, there's gonna be contact, and it's looking like a block". Just when you're ready for the block call, the offensive player pushes off, straight-arms, or drops their shoulder. Tweet. PC.

This is no different. Yes B1 did not have position, but the only CONTACT on the play was initiated by A1.

Daryl:

The key here is "A1 with the ball in their right hand pushes B1 with their left arm/elbow".

If he'd waited, he'd have gotten the call. But instead, he decided to be an idiot and elbow the defender. Too bad for him. PC foul all the way, my friend.

That's why is' always important to....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
If I'm not mistaken, the thread established that A's contact was neither flagrant nor intentional. There was no swinging, there was no punching, nor did A push B intentionally. Once A is airborne he cannot alter his momentum nor change where he will land. B did not get legal guarding position and by defintion he is responsible for causing illegal contact. See Point of Emphasis on page 71 of Rule book. It gives criteria for determining block/charge (subheading E).
Point 1. Addresses two factors.
a.Who was at the spot first? ANS. A
b.Was the guard FACING the player with the ball
with two feet on the playing court? ( this is
the same as asking did the guard have legal
Guarding position?) ANS. NO

Therefore B initated the contact. Reading further on page 71 in Point 4. Contact initiated by the defense (on or off the ball) that involves lower body, non-vertical contact and defending a perimeter player or AN AIRBORNE PLAYER, should be "BLOCK."

In my opinion, the mere fact that while airborne A's arm/elbow contacted B that was incidental therefore ignored. Rule 10.6.1 makes it possible for either player to have arms is a position to afford him protection or to absorb the force of contact. Charge B with Blocking foul and shoot appropriate free throws.

But. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A could try for goal (concentrating on judging proper distance/arc needed to be sucessful) with his right hand and at the same time with his left hand punch or swing at a defender occupying an illegal space on the floor. (This is hard for me to believe. In 25 years of officiating and 18 years of evaluating Division 1 officials have I ever seen this happen to be called)

B is still guilty of a block. Nothing A does can exonerate B if he was responsible for the contact. B is guilty of a personal foul. Charge A with a flagrant personal foul and eject. This is a double foul. No free throws, AP throw in.

So, given the play as described by OC in original post and even given the scenario by RookieDude, by definition A still is not charged with a player control foul in either case.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on May 24th, 2004 at 01:54 AM]

I see MTD Sr. taught you how to answer posts.

Short form? You're dead wrong!

Daryl, the description of the act in the original post was " A1 with the ball in their right hand PUSHED B1 with their left hand/elbow". How do you now explain ignoring one of the basic concepts on "Contact" as outlined in Rule 10-6-1 i.e "A player may not use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent from attacking the ball during a dribble OR WHEN THROWING FOR GOAL"?

[Jimgolf]

The description of the theoretical play fits that of a PC foul. However, in the actual play a referee may have seen what OC described as a push by the offensive player as an effort by the player to protect himself from contact by the defender, which is permitted. (NFHS 10-6-1)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
The description of the theoretical play fits that of a PC foul. However, in the actual play a referee may have seen what OC described as a push by the offensive player as an effort by the player to protect himself from contact by the defender, which is permitted. (NFHS 10-6-1)

Say what? You can push off with an arm to protect yourself? Where exactly in R10-6-1 does it say anything like that?

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? You can push off with an arm to protect yourself? Where exactly in R10-6-1 does it say anything like that?

My point was that the player is saying that the offensive player was pushing. The official may have seen it differently.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

My point was that the player is saying that the offensive player was pushing. The official may have seen it differently.

Whether the official saw it differently or not does not really apply to what you wrote above. You said above that a referee may have seen a "push by the offensive player"(your words). That "push" by the shooter is NEVER "permitted"(your words again) by rule, as you stated above, whether the shooter is trying to protect himself or not.There is NO wording in R10-6-1 that states that it is legal at any time for a player to push off to protect themself. Protecting yourself, by rule, is a passive act- not a proactive act like a push. If you are referring to the language in 10-6-1- i.e. "A player may HOLD the hands and arms in front of his/her face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent charge by an opponent", note that it says "hold", not "push off", and that the "hold" is a passive act.

[Daryl H. Long]

Jurassic.

I like it when people ask honest questions like you did and I do appreciate the humor in the MTD zinger.

The 3 KEYS as I see it to the whole thread is that the player is already AIRBORNE, B did not establish legal guarding position, and that B was not entitled to that place on the floor. There is nothing A can do to change the fact that contact is going to occur because of B not gaining legal guarding position. A had the right to come down to the floor unimpeded. OC said the ref called a block and I believe that to be correct. I have applied both 10.6.1 and the rules noted to determine block/charge in Points of Emphasis on page 71 of Rule Book.

To answer your question I did not ignore the CONTACT concepts as stated in 10.6.1. The guard in all the scenarios mentioned has LEGAL GUARDING POSITION and is entitled to their space on the floor. Then I agree that that if the dribbler or the player trying for goal uses an arm/elbow to ward off an opponent and thus infringing on their space he is guilty of PC.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Whether the official saw it differently or not does not really apply to what you wrote above. You said above that a referee may have seen a "push by the offensive player"(your words). That "push" by the shooter is NEVER "permitted"(your words again) by rule, as you stated above, whether the shooter is trying to protect himself or not.There is NO wording in R10-6-1 that states that it is legal at any time for a player to push off to protect themself. Protecting yourself, by rule, is a passive act- not a proactive act like a push. If you are referring to the language in 10-6-1- i.e. "A player may HOLD the hands and arms in front of his/her face or body for protection and to absorb force from an imminent charge by an opponent", note that it says "hold", not "push off", and that the "hold" is a passive act.

You are misquoting me, and misinterpreting the post. OC is the player, not the referee. The player is saying it was a push, not the ref. Please review OC's previous posts. Just because a player says a push occured does not mean a push has occurred. Since the ref did not call a foul, then he must not have seen a push.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Jurassic.

I like it when people ask honest questions like you did and I do appreciate the humor in the MTD zinger.

The 3 KEYS as I see it to the whole thread is that the player is already AIRBORNE, B did not establish legal guarding position, and that B was not entitled to that place on the floor. There is nothing A can do to change the fact that contact is going to occur because of B not gaining legal guarding position. A had the right to come down to the floor unimpeded. OC said the ref called a block and I believe that to be correct. I have applied both 10.6.1 and the rules noted to determine block/charge in Points of Emphasis on page 71 of Rule Book.

To answer your question I did not ignore the CONTACT concepts as stated in 10.6.1. The guard in all the scenarios mentioned has LEGAL GUARDING POSITION and is entitled to their space on the floor. Then I agree that that if the dribbler or the player trying for goal uses an arm/elbow to ward off an opponent and thus infringing on their space he is guilty of PC.

Quite simply, Daryl, legal guarding position is absolutely meaningless in this play.It means nada, zip, nothing. The shooter INITIATED illegal contact by pushing-off with an arm BEFORE LGP could come into play. You are 100% wrong, and you are also still completely ignoring a very plain and simple rules citation in R10-6-1- again:A player may NOT use the forearm and hand to prevent an opponent from attacking the ball during a dribble OR WHEN THROWING FOR GOAL". Your citation on p71 isn't applicable either. On that page, aren't you also ignoring the little sentence that says "contact INITIATED by the defense(on or off the ball) that involves lower body, non-vertical contact and defending a perimeter player or an airborne player, should be a block"? The defender did NOT initiate the contact in this play. The shooter did. There is nowayinhell you can call a block on this play without going completely against some very plainly written verbiage in the rulebook.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

You are misquoting me, and misinterpreting the post. OC is the player, not the referee. The player is saying it was a push, not the ref. Please review OC's previous posts. Just because a player says a push occured does not mean a push has occurred. Since the ref did not call a foul, then he must not have seen a push.

On the contrary, I am quoting YOUR statement above completely verbatim. And it is still completely wrong. You stated "However,in the actual play a referee may have seen what OC described as a push by the offensive player as an effort to protect himself from contact by the defender, WHICH IS PERMITTED". Iow, the ref did SEE the push and then called it legal because it's permitted!! Where in the rulebook does it say that it's permitted that a player can legally push off with their arm or hand to protect themselves? Well, that act is not permitted, has NEVER been permitted, and-unless they change the rules, will NEVER be permitted. It is illegal for a shooter to INITIATE contact by pushing off with his arm or hand. Rule 10-6-1.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

On the contrary, I am quoting YOUR statement above completely verbatim. And it is still completely wrong. You stated "However,in the actual play a referee may have seen what OC described as a push by the offensive player as an effort to protect himself from contact by the defender, WHICH IS PERMITTED". Iow, the ref did SEE the push and then called it legal because it's permitted!! Where in the rulebook does it say that it's permitted that a player can legally push off with their arm or hand to protect themselves? Well, that act is not permitted, has NEVER been permitted, and-unless they change the rules, will NEVER be permitted. It is illegal for a shooter to INITIATE contact by pushing off with his arm or hand. Rule 10-6-1.

Correct. However, a player is permitted raise his hands to protect himself from contact from a defender. The other player may think this is a push. This is not a push. If there is no push there is no foul. If the player says he has been pushed and the ref says he has not been pushed, who is correct?

As for the misquote, I wrote "a referee may have seen what OC described as a push by the offensive player ", and you wrote that I wrote "a referee may have seen a "push by the offensive player"". Clearly the ref did not see a push. Or are you saying that the ref saw a push and didn't know enough to call it?

[Camron Rust]

Let's see if I can be shorter than these novel writing referees:

PC Foul.


There, that didn't take long.