Is there a difference between the two?? I heard there is but cannot figure it out.

Any help or am i crazy??

Thanks
RV

A player control foul is a foul committed by the player currently in control of the ball. It is a personal foul only, and does count towards elimination. They do not yield a bonus situation. The player who was fouled does not get to shoot foul shots if his team is in the bonus.

There is no definition in the rulebook for an offensive foul.

The common ways in which the term offensive foul is used is:

- another term for a player control foul, or
- a term to mean a foul by the offense, ie. the team currently in "team possession"

The hiccup comes when some use offensive foul to mean a PC foul, where no shots are taken. Then others use it to mean a foul where shots are taken (an illegal screen).

An offensive foul is a foul committed by a player of the team that is on offense.

A player control foul is a type of offensive foul committed by a player that has control of the ball.

By definition, NCAA Men's/Women's and FIBA rules:

A team control foul is a common foul committed by a player when his team is in control of the ball and by extension a player control foul is a team control foul committed by a player in control of the ball.


By definition in NFHS rules there are only player conttrol fouls.


The only rules code that has offensive fouls is the NBA/WNBA code and I am not sure if it have the term player control in its rules. Maybe Chuck can answer this question.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, MARK!! I've got news for you, every rules code has offensive fouls. They may be called personal fouls, team control fouls, player control fouls, and there may be other terms, but every code has offensive fouls. The NBA/WNBA are the only codes that dub them "Offensive Fouls."

Juulie:

Please show me the definition of "offensive foul" in Rule 4 of the NFHS and NCAA rules codes and Rule 6 of the FIBA rules code. If you can show me that definition in any of those three rules codes I will donate my next game fee to the charity of choice in your name.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. My next game is tonight: A boys' H.S. jr. varsity game with a game fee of $35.

Please show me the definition of "offensive foul" in Rule 4 of the NFHS and NCAA rules codes and Rule 6 of the FIBA rules code. If you can show me that definition in any of those three rules codes I will donate my next game fee to the charity of choice in your name.

[/B][/QUOTE]How come I didn't get the same offer when you tried to say that there was no NFHS rule covering blarges?

If you wanna make it retroactive, donate the $35 to the Special Olympics.

How come I didn't get the same offer when you tried to say that there was no NFHS rule covering blarges?

If you wanna make it retroactive, donate the $35 to the Special Olympics. [/B][/QUOTE]


Because by rule you can't. Either the defender has obtained/established a legal guarding position or he has not. But the Special Olympics is very worthy cause.

MTD, Sr.

How come I didn't get the same offer when you tried to say that there was no NFHS rule covering blarges?

If you wanna make it retroactive, donate the $35 to the Special Olympics. [/B][/QUOTE]


<font color = red>Because by rule you can't</font>. Either the defender has obtained/established a legal guarding position or he has not. But the Special Olympics is very worthy cause.

[/B][/QUOTE]By <b>rule</b> you can't have a blarge? Casebook play 4.19.7SitC. That's the pertinent rule covering blarges.

Pay up.

Mark -- You completely misunderstand my point. There is no NFHS rule that names any fouls as "offensive". That doesn't mean that the team on offense doesn't commit fouls. My point is that the team on offense can commit fouls. That is what most people mean when they say the words "offensive foul." All codes cover the existence in actuality of fouls commited by the offense, although they may call them by other names. You can say, "NFHS doesn't use the word "offensive" as a title or category for fouls" but you can't say, the NFHS doesn't have offensive fouls. In common English, that would mean, "In NFHS, the offense can do whatever it wants, and it won't be a foul" which simply isn't true.

Juulie:

As a science professional (structural engineer) I have certain language to use. Example: I would never say "two and two is four;" I would say "two plus two equals four." Sports officials are professionals and should use the correct language of the sport one officiates.

I find it offensive that a basketball official describing a play using NFHS or NCAA rules to describe a common foul by a player of the team which is in control of the ball an offensive foul.

MTD, Sr.

Mark:

As a science professional (electrical engineer) all I can say is you crack me up.

:rolleyes:

I hope you're exaggerating. Some thought I was being touchy when I took offense at certain jokes and humor, but for you to be offended when I try to communicate with the people around me seems a little extreme.

Juulie:

Yes, I am offended when professionals do not use correct language. You forget that we are also in a position to educate. When I hear an official use incorrect terminology it sends up a red flag, telling me that this official may not be as well versed in the rules as he should be. I guess if you are going to talk the talk, then use the correct terminology.

MTD, Sr.

I didn't use "offensive foul", you did!! You are the one who said, "The NFHS doesn't have offensive fouls", not me!

As a science professional (electrical engineer) all I can say is you crack me up.

[/B][/QUOTE]I are an engineer two.

First of all Mark, unless an official is working the WNBA/NBA/NBDL, s/he is not a professional basketball official. So forget the silliness about professionals using correct language.

Second of all, I have long believed that it is every person's duty to try as hard as possible not to offend others unnecessarily, but also to try as hard as possible not to take offense easily. To quote another oft-quoted movie: Lighten up, Frances.

<font color = red>Because by rule you can't</font>. Either the defender has obtained/established a legal guarding position or he has not. But the Special Olympics is very worthy cause.

[/B][/QUOTE]By <b>rule</b> you can't have a blarge? Casebook play 4.19.7SitC. That's the pertinent rule covering blarges.

Pay up. [/B][/QUOTE]


A casebook play is not a rule but a interpretation of a rule and in this case it is not a very good interpretation.

MTD, Sr.

I are an engineer two. [/B][/QUOTE]

You crack me up too.

Mark,

When you vocalize at the spot do you say hit or illegal use of the hands?

When the screener moves do you vocalize block...and confuse the hell out of everybody...or do you say illegal screen?

I'm offended that someone, who came up with and used "CONE OF VERTICALITY", would be offended by an official reffering to a foul...committed by the offense...as an offensive foul.

A casebook play is not a rule but a interpretation of a rule and in this case it is not a very good interpretation.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's not only an incorrect statement, it's a complete pile of crap.

I have to say that I expected no less though.

IF I HAVE SAID IT ONCE I HAVE SAID IT ONE THOUSAND TIMES: I NEVER USED THE PHRASE "CONE OF VERTICALITY." I USED THE TERM: "CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY."

REPETE AFTER ME: CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY


I DO NOT APPRECIATE PEOPLE FALSLY ACCUSING ME OF USING A TERM THAT I HAVE NEVER USED, NOR I WILL NEVER USE. THIS IS THE SECOND THREAD THAT I HAVE HAD TO MAKE THIS TYPE OF POST CONCERNING THE PHRASE "CONE OF VERTICALITY." GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

Mark, you just used it, then said that you have NEVER used it.:D

Where in the rule book is CYLINDER of verticality used since we are not allowed to describe anything outside the precise language of the rule book.:D

Oh, and once again you seemed to avoid a direct question that would disturb your VERY fragile argument.;)

[Edited by blindzebra on Jan 30th, 2005 at 12:55 AM]

Please show me the definition of "offensive foul" in Rule 4 of the NFHS and NCAA rules codes and Rule 6 of the FIBA rules code. If you can show me that definition in any of those three rules codes I will donate my next game fee to the charity of choice in your name.

[/B][/QUOTE]
As a science professional (structural engineer) I have certain language to use. Example: I would never say "two and two is four;" I would say "two plus two equals four." Sports officials are professionals and should use the correct language of the sport one officiates.

I find it offensive that a basketball official describing a play using NFHS or NCAA rules to describe a common foul by a player of the team which is in control of the ball an offensive foul.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I USED THE TERM: "CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY."

REPETE AFTER ME: CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY CYLINDER OF VERTICALITY


[/B][/QUOTE]Tsk, tsk, tsk.......

Tsk!

Mark, please show me the definition of "cylinder of verticality" in rule 4 of the NFHS and NCAA rule codes, and Rule 6 of the FIBA rules code. If you can show me that definition in any of the three rules codes, I will donate my next game fee and my eldest male child to charity.

As a science professional (train engineer), I have certain language to use. Example: I would never say "two plus two is four"; I would say "two plus two are five". Sports officials are professionals and should use the correct language of the sports one officiates.

I find it offensive that a basketball official describing a play using NFHS and NCAA rules to describe the principles of "verticality" and a player's "vertical plane" would use a term that is <b>NOT</b> in the rules books- "cylinder of verticality".

Btw, Mark, some other good phrases that I have heard are:
1) Physician, heal thyself.
2) Pot....kettle...black..
3) Hypocrite

Think maybe you just might owe Juulie an apology on this one?

Not to get into the argument about offensive versus player control fouls I have a related question that came up in a game:

A1 is dribbling the ball in the front court and pushing off B1 with his free hand to gain space. My partner rightly calls a foul but indicates a pushing foul on A1 and since A was in the bonus we go to the other end and shot one and one. I am still new and he was a veteran but I would have called it a player control since he had the ball etc. but the veteran said player control was body contact as opposed to pushing with the hand etc. I am still not sure I am comfortable with this . Any feedback? Were we right shooting the one and one? Thanks.

<B><U>4-19-6</B></U>: "A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter."

vawils,
You do understand the rule.
mick

You were right, your partner was wrong. PC. No FTs.

Ooooooooo! Somebody needs a nap, real bad. :D

Maybe we should burp him first.