Drawing the line on 'contact'???

[WyMike]

First year working BB and I'm having trouble with this scenario. This happened a number of times in a 7th grade girls game over the weekend:

A1 is bringing ball up from the backcourt into frontcourt with B1 running along A1's left side in the same direction. A1 has her left arm up but not out in a flagrant "guarding the ball from defender" attempt but still a marginal shielding type of move (which I guess is very prevalent in young girl games?).

B1 reaches over A1's left arm without contacting the arm and tips the ball away. After the ball is loose A1 and B1 make shoulder contact and both stumble and go to ground. Is this a black and white 'pushing' foul on B1? What if they don't go down but contact is still made?

I think I should be calling these closer but with the contact these young girls have with their general playing overall, I get the "Incidental Contact" feeling from working football playing into my head. Certainly you cannot call each and every contact a coach hollers for, can you? Anyway, I'm having a tough time defining the line of when to blow the whistle or not on a 'steal attempt' with contact...

[Adam]

If the ball is loose, there's likely to be some incidental contact. Unless one player gets there first, it's more often than not a no-call.
I had a couple of girls bump heads this year in a freshman game. One ended up leaving the game. There was no foul, and neither coach complained because they both knew that the players literally got to the spot at the same time.
Contrary to popular myth, basketball is not a non-contact sport.

[Edited by Snaqwells on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:15 PM]

[Just Curious]

When I see this situation happen, and it happens often at all levels, the first thought that comes to mind is Advantage/Disadvantage.
I have rationalized that even if two player going for a loose ball hit each other hard enough to break bones, in their attempt to secure the ball, if neither gain an advantage over or was put at a disadvantage by their opponent, then I have a no-call.

[mick]

Originally posted by WyMike
B1 reaches over A1's left arm without contacting the arm and tips the ball away. After the ball is loose A1 and B1 make shoulder contact and both stumble and go to ground. Is this a black and white 'pushing' foul on B1? What if they don't go down but contact is still made?

WyMike,
Was B1 moving toward A1? If yes, foul on B1.
Was A1 put at a disadvantage, (ie, being on the floor caused by the action of B1)? If yes, foul on B1.

With no one falling, was A1 displaced or put at a disadvantage (ie, stumbling or displaced and unable to retrieve the ball) when the contact occurred? If yes, foul on B1. If no, incidental.

mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
Unless one player gets their first, it's more often than not a no-call.

Gets their first what?

Mr. Spelling is away today and I'm filling in for him.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Gets their first what?

Mr. Spelling is away today and I'm filling in for him.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about.

Adam (making full use of the edit function)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by WyMike
First year working BB and I'm having trouble with this scenario. This happened a number of times in a 7th grade girls game over the weekend:

A1 is bringing ball up from the backcourt into frontcourt with B1 running along A1's left side in the same direction. A1 has her left arm up but not out in a flagrant "guarding the ball from defender" attempt but still a marginal shielding type of move (which I guess is very prevalent in young girl games?).

B1 reaches over A1's left arm without contacting the arm and tips the ball away. After the ball is loose A1 and B1 make shoulder contact and both stumble and go to ground. Is this a black and white 'pushing' foul on B1? What if they don't go down but contact is still made?

Frequently, A's first reaction to having the ball tipped away is to swing the "free" arm out and hold B from getting to the ball. Could be a foul on A.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by mick

WyMike,
Was B1 moving toward A1? If yes, foul on B1.
Was A1 put at a disadvantage, (ie, being on the floor caused by the action of B1)? If yes, foul on B1.

With no one falling, was A1 displaced or put at a disadvantage (ie, stumbling or displaced and unable to retrieve the ball) when the contact occurred? If yes, foul on B1. If no, incidental.

mick

From WyMikes description I read, B1 cleanly knocks the ball away, both players turn toward the ball and contact each other, so unless there is a hand pulling or an arm across holding this is incidental contact and a good defensive play by B1.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra

From WyMikes description I read, B1 cleanly knocks the ball away, both players turn toward the ball and contact each other, so unless there is a hand pulling or an arm across holding this is incidental contact and a good defensive play by B1.

blindzebra,
Yeah, that could be one of several possible scenarios.

(The actual picture was not painted by the artist. Did they incidentally bump during a change of direction? Did B1 go through A1 due to momentum? )

Yet, another possibility is whether A1 or B1 was postioned behind the opponent, when they went for the ball, and may have become responsible for contact.
mick

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by mick

blindzebra,
Yeah, that could be one of several possible scenarios.

(The actual picture was not painted by the artist. Did they incidentally bump during a change of direction? Did B1 go through A1 due to momentum? )

Yet, another possibility is whether A1 or B1 was postioned behind the opponent, when they went for the ball, and may have become responsible for contact.
mick

Again, I read B1 along side of a chicken-winged A1. To knock the ball away, without contact, B1 has to be slightly in front of A1.

B1 tips the ball away and steps toward the ball, A1 pivots toward the ball and their SHOULDERS make contact causing them to go opposite directions.

That SCREAMS incidental contact, IMO.

Perhaps you view contact immediately after a loose ball differently than I do.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Perhaps you view contact immediately after a loose ball differently than I do.

I have always had trouble viewing the unseen.
mick

[WyMike]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Perhaps you view contact immediately after a loose ball differently than I do.

There's my point... My view is inherently different from the coaches and bleachers. I've had one seasoned official give me his blanket call of always on B1 for pushing since B1 was making the play towards the ball.

Another mentions he'll whistle A1 for the arm being up shielding the ball.

Yet another has a philosophy of "incidental" and let it go whether they go to ground or not.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious B1 mowing A1 over type of thing, nor A1 with an obvious PC on B1 type of calls.

It's these marginal one way or the other type of plays that are being addressed in the thread.

I kind of like the response by mick: Was B1 moving toward A1? If yes, foul on B1.
Was A1 put at a disadvantage, (ie, being on the floor caused by the action of B1)? If yes, foul on B1.

With no one falling, was A1 displaced or put at a disadvantage (ie, stumbling or displaced and unable to retrieve the ball) when the contact occurred? If yes, foul on B1. If no, incidental.

This particular time B1 knocked the ball cleanly away but Coach A screamed for reach call. Coach B wanted the push call for the arm being up. Both A1 and B1 angled to the line opposite the score table bumped shoulders, stumbled and went down while the ball rolled ahead and A2 picked up the ball on a dead run and went straight to goal and scored.

So between both coaches they wanted a reach call on B1, a shield call on A1, and they both would have taken push calls on the other player. Coach B was especially upset since A2 scored and felt the play should have been whistled.

I felt it was "Incidental Contact" that may have escalated into something I should have called.

Is micks rendition pretty solid to go by until I get more games under my belt?

[Maverick]

Assuming again that the ball was knocked away cleanly, you know have two players with an equal right to a loose ball. If they are both running directly toward the ball (not into the other player) and not putting an arm out to hold/slow down the other player, I've got no call. There will almost certainly be contact considering they're both running to the same place but not necessarily a foul. I've tried to get out of the habit of still thinking that the only foul can be on the defense. Often, I find that the defender is moving faster so it is usually the offense that pushes/runs into the defense once the ball becomes loose so the foul can often go the other way.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by WyMike

There's my point... My view is inherently different from the coaches and bleachers. I've had one seasoned official give me his blanket call of always on B1 for pushing since B1 was making the play towards the ball.

Another mentions he'll whistle A1 for the arm being up shielding the ball.

Yet another has a philosophy of "incidental" and let it go whether they go to ground or not.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious B1 mowing A1 over type of thing, nor A1 with an obvious PC on B1 type of calls.

It's these marginal one way or the other type of plays that are being addressed in the thread.

I kind of like the response by mick: Was B1 moving toward A1? If yes, foul on B1.
Was A1 put at a disadvantage, (ie, being on the floor caused by the action of B1)? If yes, foul on B1.

With no one falling, was A1 displaced or put at a disadvantage (ie, stumbling or displaced and unable to retrieve the ball) when the contact occurred? If yes, foul on B1. If no, incidental.

This particular time B1 knocked the ball cleanly away but Coach A screamed for reach call. Coach B wanted the push call for the arm being up. Both A1 and B1 angled to the line opposite the score table bumped shoulders, stumbled and went down while the ball rolled ahead and A2 picked up the ball on a dead run and went straight to goal and scored.

So between both coaches they wanted a reach call on B1, a shield call on A1, and they both would have taken push calls on the other player. Coach B was especially upset since A2 scored and felt the play should have been whistled.

I felt it was "Incidental Contact" that may have escalated into something I should have called.

Is micks rendition pretty solid to go by until I get more games under my belt?

No, the fact that BOTH coaches wanted a foul is a good indication that your no-call was 100% correct.

Be in position and see the ENTIRE play, and judge. We can all throw, "If it is this you call that," stuff at you, but you still have to judge the play on what you saw.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

No, the fact that BOTH coaches wanted a foul is a good indication that your no-call was 100% correct.

Be in position and see the ENTIRE play, and judge. We can all throw, "If it is this you call that," stuff at you, but you still have to judge the play on what you saw.

My philosophy is, if the coach or more than one parent is screaming, "Get her off!! She's all over her!!" I got nothin'.