submarine move

[ysong]

Please help me understand the rationale here: A3 made an illegal move (even though no contact occured), but why should team B get penalized instead?

Should it be ruled that the ball is dead at the moment when A3 move beneath B4, so the field goal try taken after that moment means nothing?


SITUATION 15: Defender B4 attempts to stop an apparent lob pass near the basket. While B4 is airborne, A3 moves beneath B4 . To avoid injury, B4 grasps the basket ring. While B4 grasps the ring, A1 shoots from about 12 feet away. Just after A1 releases the shot, B4 lets go of the ring and lands safely. The ring is still moving when (a) the ball hits the moving ring and bounces in; or (b) the ball enters and passes completely through the basket, without contacting the moving ring. RULING: Since B4 grasped the ring to prevent injury, no technical foul is called. In (a), when the ball contacts the moving ring, basket interference is called on B4; the ball is dead and the try cannot score, but A1 is awarded two points. In (b), since the ball entered and passed completely through the basket without touching the ring, basket interference has not occurred; play continues. (9-11-4; 4-6-4; 10-3-5 Exc)

[zebraman]

A3 did nothing illegal. It would have been illegal had B4 not grabbed the rim and contact had been made (it would have been a foul on A3). However, we do not make calls based on things that MIGHT have happened. You cannot have a foul without contact and there is no violation that deals with moving under a player.

Z

[Redhouse]

I may be totally off with this, but let me take a stab.

B4 grasped the ring to prevent injury. He is not penalized for grasping the ring. It was B4's choice to grasp the ring, he could have come down on A and drawn the foul. There can not be a violation on A unless contact is made in that situation. This is similar to someone seting a screen, it is not a foul unless contact occurs and even with some contact it still may not be a foul.

If B4 was to come down on A then you could have a foul on A, but not before contact occurs.

I may have left something out.

[Adam]

The only thing I would add is that by rule, preventing injury protects B4 from the T, but not from basket interference

[ysong]

Originally posted by zebraman
A3 did nothing illegal. It would have been illegal had B4 not grabbed the rim and contact had been made (it would have been a foul on A3). However, we do not make calls based on things that MIGHT have happened. You cannot have a foul without contact and there is no violation that deals with moving under a player.

Z

Thanks Zebraman. I agree with you in that "no contact, no personal foul.". I think I was confused by this paragraph.

NCAA 4-8-Art.1 -A.R.6:
...It shall be an intentional foul when a player
moves into the path of an airborne opponent with the intent to undercut and contact results. When the moving player moves under the airborne opponent and there is danger (Note: no mentioning of requiring contact here) of severe injury as a result of the contact, it shall be a flagrant personal foul on the moving player. ...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Bush in 2004

False.

Okay, I'll bite. When can you have a foul (other than a T) without contact?

[ysong]

I saw players used such tactics: a defender uses his upper body to fake to move in front of and under an airborn shooter then flashes back to avoid the contact. But the shooter is distracted by his self-protection instincts.

Do you think this tactic deserves a T (unsportsmanlike) if used frequently?

Thanks.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Bush in 2004

As far as I know, you can't. The statement as originally written by Z was false. That's the point I was making, specifically with a T in mind.

I think it's pretty obvious that the original post is not concerning technical fouls.

Z

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Bush in 2004

Agreed, however, that's not what you said.

I suppose I could have said, "you cannot have a contact foul without contact" but that seemed a little repetitous.

Z

[ysong]

I saw players used such tactics: a defender uses his upper body to fake to move in front of and under an airborn shooter then flashes back to avoid the contact. But the shooter is distracted by his self-protection instincts.

Do you think this tactic deserves a T (unsportsmanlike) if used frequently?

Thanks.

[BktBallRef]

No. If at some point, the NFHS came out and stated that's how the want it called, then call it. But this is something that players have done for years. If you go out and try to make new laws, you're gonaa find yourself in trouble.

[Back In The Saddle]

Agreed. If a player can gain an advantage within the rules, why should we try to negate it? Generally speaking, if it's not forbidden by rule, we don't worry about it.