Michigan St. vs. Duke.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by rwest
I've been told that if a player blocks a shot from behind, that I should call a foul if it is a violent tomahawk style block, even if they get all ball.

A foul is excessive contact. No contact, no foul.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally posted by rwest
I've been told that if a player blocks a shot from behind, that I should call a foul if it is a violent tomahawk style block, even if they get all ball.

No way. If the defender gets "all ball" and no contact is made, I don't care what he did to get "all ball" it is not a foul. This is a fundamental of basketball... a foul can only occur if contact is made (just like you can't travel while dribbling). Similarly, just because someone sets a screen and moves while setting it, if he/she does not make contact with the defender it is not a foul. Was it a moving screen... yes. Was it a foul... no because of the absence of contact.

Who ever is giving out that advice needs to stop giving advice.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

No way. If the defender gets "all ball" and no contact is made, I don't care what he did to get "all ball" it is not a foul. This is a fundamental of basketball... a foul can only occur if contact is made (just like you can't travel while dribbling). Who ever is giving out that advice needs to stop giving advice. [/B]

BBJ what is a violent block if it is not a foul?

Here our training has touched on hard fouls and specifically the violent foul such as the push from behind or the tomahawk chop. Anytime a player "winds up" from his waist level to tomahawk the ball it should be called a foul. The examples used were:

• B1 tomahawk blocks the shot of A1 getting all ball but so violently that the ball is driven into the face of A1 as a result of the force of the otherwise clean block.
  
• As a preventative measure (read as deterrent) to avoid injury as most often the violent chop/push results in contact that is severe.

I really do not have a problem calling these fouls especially when put into the perspective of preventative officiating and avoiding escalation of actions that could bring things to a fever pitch. Have you ever had to deal with the retaliation or the follow-up violent foul by the opposite team, the so-called 'payback'? Have you ever worked a game where the violent foul no-call nearly causes a riot?

As officials we hate to go against our partners in a game but once in a while you have the proverbial "Oh Sh*t!" no-call where your partners pass or miss on a call so terribly (i.e. bodies on the floor due to violent contact) that someone has to save the crew with a whistle albeit late....that someone will be me.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally posted by Robmoz

BBJ what is a violent block if it is not a foul?

Here our training has touched on hard fouls and specifically the violent foul such as the push from behind or the tomahawk chop. Anytime a player "winds up" from his waist level to tomahawk the ball it should be called a foul. The examples used were:

• B1 tomahawk blocks the shot of A1 getting all ball but so violently that the ball is driven into the face of A1 as a result of the force of the otherwise clean block.
  
• As a preventative measure (read as deterrent) to avoid injury as most often the violent chop/push results in contact that is severe.

I really do not have a problem calling these fouls especially when put into the perspective of preventative officiating and avoiding escalation of actions that could bring things to a fever pitch. Have you ever had to deal with the retaliation or the follow-up violent foul by the opposite team, the so-called 'payback'? Have you ever worked a game where the violent foul no-call nearly causes a riot?

As officials we hate to go against our partners in a game but once in a while you have the proverbial "Oh Sh*t!" no-call where your partners pass or miss on a call so terribly (i.e. bodies on the floor due to violent contact) that someone has to save the crew with a whistle albeit late....that someone will be me. [/B]

Your kidding right? First of all the other poster said a "violent tomahawk chop block (read: blocked shot), when he gets "all ball". If he gets all ball, by definition you can't have a foul. I don't care how it is done. \

Now, that being said he better get "all ball" with that style of blocked shot attempt. If there is any contact what-so-ever it is a foul.

I am all for preventive officiating and these are plays we need to stay on top of. If I have this play and it is a clean block, I stay right with those players and get in between them if I have to to settle things down... that is preventative as well and doesn't have to be calling a foul when one doesn't exist.

To answer your example of a person takes a big swipe at the ball and the ball goes into the other players face and it is all ball, no foul... that falls into the category of "stuff happens" for that player. Again, you may need to stay with those players for a while and keep your eye on them for a few trips up and down the court.

[Robmoz]

Curious but not trying to disrespect.

Have your assignors offered you any guidance on this particular topic and how they want it called?

Have you ever experienced this type of action?

Do you understand the logic behind the argument based on the safety issue or prevention management?

[rwest]

BBJ,

Suppose the player got part of the hand that was in contact with the ball? You'd call a foul? Why? Using your same logic its not a foul because by rule the hand is part of the ball. Are you going to disregard the rule because of the violent nature of the block? If so, why not call the foul when he got all ball?

It seems to me that if you call a foul when he got part of the hand and I call the foul even if he did not make contact with the hand, in both cases we are calling a foul contrary to the strict letter of the law.

[BBall_Junkie]

Robmoz,

Have my assignors offered specific guidance on this type of play and how they want it called? Specifically... no. However, they want what constitutes a foul to be called and what doesn't constitute a foul to be passed on. No contact... No Foul

Yes, I have experienced this type of action and most of the time if it is all ball the person who got their stuff blocked usually has nothing to say about it. If so, I or my partners are right there to diffuse the situation (similar to D. Gray with McCants last night even though a foul was rightfully called).

To a certain extent I understand the logic. That is why I posted that if a player takes a big rip and does not want a foul to be called he better get 100% ball. If there is an contact I will put air in my whistle. But I still say you can't call a foul just because you think a foul should be called... it has to fit the definition.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the players safety is paramount and I will do everything I have to ensure that everyone goes home safely.

[rwest]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie
Robmoz,

Have my assignors offered specific guidance on this type of play and how they want it called? Specifically... no. However, they want what constitutes a foul to be called and what doesn't constitute a foul to be passed on. No contact... No Foul

Yes, I have experienced this type of action and most of the time if it is all ball the person who got their stuff blocked usually has nothing to say about it. If so, I or my partners are right there to diffuse the situation (similar to D. Gray with McCants last night even though a foul was rightfully called).

To a certain extent I understand the logic. That is why I posted that if a player takes a big rip and does not want a foul to be called he better get 100% ball. If there is an contact I will put air in my whistle. But I still say you can't call a foul just because you think a foul should be called... it has to fit the definition.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the players safety is paramount and I will do everything I have to ensure that everyone goes home safely.

BBJ,

If you call a foul when the player made contact with the hand, this by definition, is not a foul. The hand is part of the ball.

[BBall_Junkie]

Rwest,

The hand is part of the ball, therefore he get's all ball and no call is made. When I said he better get 100% ball, I meant according to the rules definition which includes the hand. Wrist, head , body get brushed, grazed etc. Whistle.



[Edited by BBall_Junkie on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 12:40 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Robmoz
Curious but not trying to disrespect.

Have your assignors offered you any guidance on this particular topic and how they want it called?

Have you ever experienced this type of action?

Do you understand the logic behind the argument based on the safety issue or prevention management?

Here's an answer from an assignor that also takes has to take complaints:
1) I would never dream of telling any of my officials to ever call a foul when there was no physical contact present. There is simply no rules basis to do so.
2) If I received a complaint from a coach that one of my officials was calling personal fouls without physical contact, and the official acknowledged that was correct, I doubt very much that I would ever assign that official to any game higher than maybe Grade 6. I can tell you that our evaluators would make the same suggestion to me also.
3) Yes, I've had players get mad when they got cleanly facialed. I tell them honestly why no foul was called- i.e. it was a clean block. If their egos won't accept that,then you have a coaching problem instead of an officiating problem imo.
4) No, I certainly do not understand the logic behind calling something a foul that isn't. Safety and prevention management are non-factors completely, again imo.

Can't agree at all with you on this one, Rob. There's judgement involved as to how much physical contact that you're gonna allow out there on any call, but there's no judgement involved at all when there's no physical contact present at all. It's just not a foul.

[DJ]

A player violently tomahawks the hand which is on the ball so that it breaks his hand? Good no call? I think a person has to be very carefull about what you are advocating because I also think that the rules are designed to prevent injury. How about going for the ball but taking the legs out of a player? Intentional foul? Or common foul? He played the ball. I'm not so sure that I can agree with acts that are high risk for injury being protected by definition of a rule. I don't think that this is good for the game or the players and as stated, can easily escalate into more than any of us want to handle. These are the kinds of calls that lead to a disaster in the fourth quarter and severe injury.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DJ
A player violently tomahawks the hand which is on the ball so that it breaks his hand? Good no call?

I'm not sure that everyone understands the purpose and intent of this particular rule. What the rulesmakers are telling us is that it's legal for a defender to contact the part of the opponent's hand that's in contact with the ball as long as that contact is incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, this is a judgement call on the official's part. If we think that the "tomahawk" and subsequent contact on the hand on the ball was part of a legitimate block attempt, then by rule it's not a foul. If you feel that the "tomahawk" wasn't a legitimate try to make a block but was only done to prevent a layup, then if there was contact on the hand on the ball, you could call a foul.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 01:14 PM]

[JRutledge]

Contact can be severe and not be a foul. The amount of contact on a player has nothing to do with calling fouls. That is not me talking. That is the rulebook talking.

In my game on Tuesday a small guard attempted to drive the lane and made a jump stop and went head on with the Center, who was 6'3" and about 230 pounds. The guard bounced completely off the center and lost the ball and fell to the floor. There was a lot of contact, but what foul could I call in this case? Well actually nothing. The defender stood completely still. He did not move when contact took place. Could the guard have gotten hurt? Of course he could have, but you cannot just call a foul on the defender when they are playing within the rules.

Peace

[rwest]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm not sure that everyone understands the purpose and intent of this particular rule. What the rulesmakers are telling us is that it's legal for a defender to contact the part of the opponent's hand that's in contact with the ball as long as that contact is incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, this is a judgement call on the official's part. If we think that the "tomahawk" and subsequent contact on the hand on the ball was part of a legitimate block attempt, then by rule it's not a foul. If you feel that the "tomahawk" wasn't a legitimate try to make a block but was only done to prevent a layup, then if there was contact on the hand on the ball, you could call a foul.

So, in other words JR, you are suggesting that we can officiate outside the black letter of the law if we believe the intent of the rule has been violated. As you said, that's up to the referee's judgement. I don't believe it is a stretch to say that a violent block from behind violates the intent of the rule, even if it does not violate the strict letter of the law.

[Robmoz]

I hear ya JR, I guess it rests with the assignor or evaluator in the end.

I have had an evaluator tell me that a severe tomahawk motion should be judged as a reckless act and that calling a foul is the lesser of two evils. His premise was that although it may be a lose-lose situation if it came down to trying to prevent any potential for escalation the err is on the side of safety.

Having said that, I will toe the company line when called to do so. Each conference I work in has certain philosophical differences compared to others; some based on historical events (i.e previous fights), or skill levels of players (i.e. multiple D1 potential players), or experience of officials (i.e. rooks vs. vets).

My point being that the boss has the final word, I accept it or I go work somewhere else.