Re: I agree with Mick
 

Since, in the original sitch, the shot is long gone and the player has returned to the floor, you can't use this as a basis as to whether or not to call the foul. One thing I DO consider in a situation like this is, did it affect the shooters ability to get the rebound. If the ball rebounds back toward this shooter and the defender, and the shooter has been put at a distinct disadvantage as a result of being pushed backward after returning to the floor, then I've got a foul. If, on the other hand, the ball caroms off to the other side of the basket and neither of these guys would have had a chance at the rebound, then I've got nothin.

[Edited by Whistles & Stripes on Dec 14th, 2005 at 01:42 PM]

Re: Re: I agree with Mick
 

Whistles & Stripes,
Well, using the ability to rebound to adjudge whether the offensive player can get a carom is fine except for the interim seconds. For a short shot, that may certainly work, but with such a shot, will the shooter actually land ?

So many times I see the senseless butt-to-legs thingy out around the arc. Now, if I were to wait to see which way the shot was going to bounce and then call the *block*, there would be lotsa egg on my face for the 3-4 second delay.
mick

This is not just about advantage/disadvantage, it is also about rough play...you know that POE we have every year.

Letting this stuff slide is what causes more stuff later on, get it the first time and the line is drawn.

call it - it is not boxing out - it does give an advantage because it is displacement and it moves the player from a legally established position that might allow them to defend the fast break or other such events.

Determining if the shot rebounds into the area they were / are in give advantage to the defender.
would you use that criteria for a play who displaced a rebounder from behind right at the rim?
No call because the ball went to the other side?

Call it! It will make your life easier if you get it early and often you will not see it for long.

Contact?
 

This is part of basketball - you are taught to block out you put a body on the guy.

As an official, there is of course disadvantage/advantage etc., that might be considered, but I don't see this as a preventative measure at all.

On every rebound there is contact, guys pushing, grabbing, moving their butt into other players etc.,

I don't see that as "rough play" anymore than I see a 5'3 guard putting a body on a player after the shot has been released.

Why should it be any different than in the paint? Its basketball and there will be lots of contact, but I don't see that by calling this a foul its going to clean the game up at all. Maybe its just me, but that's the way I see it.

Now if he puts the other player on the floor or something drastic that's different, but simply blocking out is not rough play.

Thanks
David

Re: Contact?
 

Blocking out is holding YOUR position and NOT CREATING A NEW ONE by displacing another player.

FYI, grabbing, pushing, and moving their butts into another player during rebounding IS ILLEGAL CONTACT and not basketball.

Calling games the way you propose is why rough play is a point of emphasis every year.:rolleyes:

I have seen this more and more as well. I have even heard a coach tell a 6th grade player to box out another player by pushing him all the way to the wall. I quietly told the kid "don't do that, it's a foul".

blindzebra,
As I wrote, rough play gets called.
A mere 24" displacement is less than a step backward forced upon a player barely involved in the action.
finis.
mick

Re: Re: Contact?
 

I don't believe I said anything at all about "creating a new space" - I'm talking about a block out in basketball.

It happens probably 50+ times in a game with good coaches, less than that in a game with poor coaches.

There is contact, but its not rough play.

As Mick said, if he moves the player out, call the foul, but as the rule book states about contact, there will be contact and some of it pretty rough in this game.

Keeping the game clean is all about knowing when to call the right foul on the right player, not simply calling every bit of contact a foul

Thanks
David

Re: Re: Contact?
 

We agree that blocking out is holding your position.

Normally A1 holds his position against B1 & B1 holds his position against A1. They do this by pushing against each other with their bodies...it's senseless to "hold your position" if there's no one else trying to push you out of it.

That said, why should A1 be penalized because B1 fails to hold his own position and permits A1 to displace him?

Re: Re: Re: Contact?
 

Then why call a charge since B1 failed to hold their legal position when A1 pushed through them?

I guess we won't call the push on B1 that sends A1 flying since A1 did not hold their position either.

a player may not:

a. Displace, charge or push an opponent.
b. Extend shoulders, hips, knees or extend the arms or elbows 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 or elbows occurs.
c. Bend his/her body in an abnormal position to hold or displace an opponent.
d. Violate the principle of verticality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Contact?
 

You're the one who said "Blocking out is holding your position and not creating a new on by displacing another player.", I merely agreed with you and took it to the logical next step.

Your series of "yeahbut-whatif" plays are not relevant at all to the scenario we're discussing.

Let's try again: if it's legal to "hold your position" while blocking out then against what, exactly, are you holding your position?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contact?
 

Holding as in screening off, sealing, or keeping the opponent from getting to the ball without going through you.

That phrase in no way describes the sumo match you are suggesting, and yes by your "next logical step" the plays I gave are completely relevant.

Displacement is displacement, it does not matter if it is the boxer or the boxee, or block/charge, if they are moved from their legally obtained space by contact and it hinders them it is a foul. I include the likelihood of further pushing and shoving into my definition of hindering as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contact?
 

This seems to violate basic screening principles.

Quote:

That phrase in no way describes the sumo match you are suggesting, and yes by your "next logical step" the plays I gave are completely relevant.

Sumo match is not a word I would use, but let's go with it. If A1 & B1 engage in a sumo match waiting for the rebound then unless there's discplacement there's no foul I take it.[/B][/QUOTE]