A1 is driving the lane and jumps toward the hoop. B1 comes into block the path, after A1 is airborn (legal guarding position is not set). A1 with the ball in their right hand pushes B1 with their left arm/elbow. If A1 had kept their arm to themself it would have been a blocking foul on B1. What's the call?

PC foul.

A1 pushed B1 with their arm/elbow before B1 could get out of the way to avoid the block.
PC foul on A1.

OK question. Is a PC counted toward team fouls and bonus?

Sure.
But B1 would not shoot a FT for the PC foul.

So, if team A had 6 team fouls and A1 comits a PC, team B would be shooting a 1 and 1. Yes?

No

Even though it is the 7th team foul for Team A...B1 would not shoot a FT because the 7th foul was a PC foul.

Sooooo, you could have 7 team fouls on the board with no FT's being shot.
Is that what you are asking TravelinMan?

You never shoot PC.

Unless you deem it "intentional".

And then it's not, by definition, PC.

Yes, just wanted to clarify for members listening in.

Blocking foul by B. Contact occurred because B was 1)not entitled to the spot on the floor and 2)did not establish legal guarding position.

Remember, when A returns to the floor his arms come with him. His arms even go with him as he continues in the air toward the basket. When the contact occurred it is not A who initiated it but B did, therefore B's foul.

Don't complicate a textbook block (as you described) by over-analyzing it.

Soooo...if A's arms "come down with him" swinging, punching, pushing, etc. it's OK?

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]

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]

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.

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....

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

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 <i>"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"</i>?

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?

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. <i>"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"</i>, note that it says "hold", not "push off", and that the "hold" is a passive act.

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.

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.

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:<i>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"</i>. Your citation on p71 isn't applicable either. On that page, aren't you also ignoring the little sentence that says <i>"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"</i>? 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.

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?

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

PC Foul.


There, that didn't take long. ;)

Jim Golf: Here is the original. Post #1 on page #1. What could be clearer? Rule 10-6-1 says that this is a PC foul. Legal guarding position doesn't apply because the illegal contact by the shooter occured before LGP came into play. Are you saying something different?

Overall, it's a very interesting question. Does it have to do with the fact that the shooter's arm made contact<b> before </b> the bodies collided?

Okay, well it feels pretty dorky to have my question post just seconds after the answer!

Jurassic, I'm not saying anything different regarding the original post. Push is PC foul. In his follow up post, oc says: .

A little more information than the original post, and made me wonder whether the accusation of a push by A1 was accurate, or whether this was B1's impression of the play. Clearly A1 has run into B1, but since B1 doesn't have LGP, the question is whether the arm contact is in the form of a push or normal player reaction to being run into by a defensive player. I tend to agree with the ref on this one.

I didn't give extra information at first because I don't care about that particular foul anymore. I was B1 in the play and definitely biased. However, the situation got me wondering what is the right call the next time I am reffing and see this play. Thanks to Jurrassic and others it looks like the call is PC-assuming the push by A1 is hard enough to warrant it. Otherwise it would be a block. Correct?

[Edited by oc on May 25th, 2004 at 12:45 AM]

I'd say so....

If the push is not hard enough either way, it is probably a no-call.

Any blood? Pick everyone up off the floor and play on... no-call :D

I read the orignal post shortly after it was posted. I did not respond to it because at the time I did not have time to submit a detailed post.

Daryl and I umpired a boys' H.S. baseball game this afternoon and he told me about the thread. When I got home from watching our younger son's baseball game I decided to re-read the original post and read the entire thread.

I agree with Daryl. This is a blocking foul on B1. Remember, A1's arms go where ever A1 goes. I really would like to see A1 try to attempt such a manuever in the air with his arm. I do not believe the laws of physics will allow A1 to effect such a manuever.

For all those who think that I taught Daryl how to make long posts, I am going to have to disappoint you all. Daryl and I are both rules intepreters and teach an officiating class together. Daryl is also a respected evaluator of women's Div. I officials.

MTD, Sr.

Are you kidding? Seriously? You've never seen a shooter push off with an arm?

You need to get out more.

Btw, isn't A1 supposed to keep his arms inside his cone of verticality?

I have seen a player with the ball push off with his arm, but once a player is airborne the laws of physics take over, especially Newton's Three Laws of Motion. I just do not believe that A1 can do what was described in the hypothentical play that was the original post of this thread.

And yes Daryl and I do get out quite a bit. Friday we leave for Hartford, CT, to officiate in the Starters Girls' Summer Classic.

MTD, Sr.

And which of the 3 laws prevents A1 from extending his arm while airborne?

You fellas have some fun. :)
mick

Your reply doesn't answer the question. If, hypotheticallly, an airborne shooter pushes off with their arm (whether you believe they can do it or not isn't relevant), why is it a blocking foul instead of a PC foul? What happened to that "cone of verticality" that you taught us about, Mark? Why would you ignore the specific rule -NFHS rule 10-6-1- that I quoted above? What is the specific rules basis that you are relying on that will allow an airborne player to get away with pushing of with an arm?

When the offensive player clears out, they usually don't MOVE the defensive player back as much as they create space by bouncing off the defender. It happens all the time, there is six inches between airborne players, the arm comes out and suddenly there is two feet between them.

I am not going to argue with your interpretation. I made this post to get opinions. But I don't understand how you could think this is impossible. It's not that difficult-if fact it is pretty easy. Please explain.

I think what MTD is saying is that since the offensive player is in the air, he cannot push the defender. He has to be on the ground to do so. This is because there is no resistance to the force being applied. In essence he would be pushing away from the defender, not pushing the defender. I think the end result for you is the same: you got hit by the offensive player. It's up to the ref to determine if this contact is a foul or not, or incidental to you committing a block.

Of course, when I took physics, they said personal computers were impossible.

Aint so at all, as an obvious example ask yourself who would be "pushed away" if A1 were shaq and B1 were, say, Reggie Miller. Actually Mark brought up Newton's laws of motion. His (Newton's not Mark's) second law applies when considering the force involved.

What MTD is doing is making an excuse for calling it a block and trying to get out of it.

Just because the offense can not push the defender away from them, does not make this a block. If A1 creates space for their shot by pushing HIMSELF away from B1 it is a PC foul.

MTD has this whole cone of verticality deal to protect A1 from committing any PC fouls.

MTD has this whole cone of verticality deal to protect A1 from committing any PC fouls.

[/B][/QUOTE]Arms are only within the protected "cone of verticality" if they are straight up. If they aren't straight up, then the the arms are in the "cone of horizontality", which is a restricted zone. That's why pushing off with the arm is a foul on the pusher, and not on the pushee.

Hey, it's all starting to make sense now. Drool. Slobber. :D

Ok, most of us agree that a push in mid-air is a PC foul, even if the defender gets there late.
How about if A1 jumps into the air with a straight arm and dosen't move his arm at all, ala' The Heisman trophy, and then crashes into B1 who has got there late?

Does this fit MTD's response about arms having to go with the body?
A1 didn't "push" off...he stayed in the same pose throughout the jump. This is really going to look bad calling it a block, because the hand/arm of A1 is in a straight arm position...but MTD may have something with this one, because the hand/arm did follow A1 with no "pushing" going on...it was a straight arm...not a push.
Just stirring the pot a little. ;)

Well, let's see if we can stir us up a rule to cover it: :D

How about Rule 4-24-6? -- <i>"It is not legal to extend the arms fully or partially in a position other than vertical so that the freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the arms occurs"</i>.

Or maybe Rule 4-24-7? <i>"It is NOT legal to use the hand and/or forearm to prevent an opponent from attacking the ball during a dribble OR WHEN THROWING FOR GOAL"</i>.

Think that oughta take care of it?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 28th, 2004 at 06:41 PM]

Sorry MTD...
I think that about covers it.