Foul, or Legal?

[rainmaker]

I'm gonna try to describe this play the best I can, I'm just not sure I'll get it across.

First, imagine B1, defending the ball-handler, standing with arms straight up, completely legal. A1 jumps to shoot, B1 jumps a little, goes straight up. There's a little contact as A1 moves her arms and the ball toward the basket, but nowhere near enough contact to call a foul.

Now, imagine the same play, with B1 still completely legal, but there's a lot of contact before A1 goes up. The contact was created by A1, and it's judged incidental. We've all seen this play, haven't we? When A1 goes to shoot, B1 goes up completely in her plane. Both players stay in their own space (the proverbial cones of verticality), and although there's continuous contact all the way up and all the way down, it's all legal, and there's no foul.

Now, here's the questionable play. B1 has complete legal position while A1 is "shaking and baking". As A1 is setting up to shoot, B1 moves her arms backward to about 25 degrees from straight up. Still legal. There's quite a bit of body contact, but it's incidental. As A1 jumps and moves her arms and the ball up and toward the basket (completely legally) staying in her plane, B1 moves her arms quickly back to straight up. There's quite a bit of contact, sudden contact. But B1 never left LGP, and never moved out of her "cone of verticality." B1 didn't flip her hands forward as many hapless guards do in that situation.

The same amount of contact would be completely incidental, if it was continuous as A1 jumped to shoot. But now the contact is sudden, and it's all created by B1, but is it a foul?

[Camron Rust]

It is not clear to me which direction B1's arms are moving in the final scenario. Whatever you meant, if B1's arms are moving towards A1 (in any direction other than straight up from where they started) when the contact is made, it is a foul on B1. B1 doesn't get to bring them into the vertical plane if A1 is already there.

[canuckrefguy]

Agree with Camron. If B1's forward motion with her arms - even if it was from -25 degrees to straight up - causes contact which interfered with A1's shot, it sounds like a foul to me. B1 is initiating the contact in question - I've got a foul.

Same as when the defender has hands straight up, then pikes the arms down on the shooter, then goes straight up again - and gives you the shocked look when you call the foul

[Nevadaref]

Rainmaker, rather than tell you whether or not I believe that a foul should be called on this specific play (which wouldn't really mean much since I wasn't there and didn't see it, nor would it help you become a better official in the long run), I am going to advise you to do some thinking about how you handle this type of play in general.

I say that because you have described a couple of situations that involve players going up in vertical planes and yet contact occurs.

I'll point out that if both players really are going straight up in their vertical planes there shouldn't be much contact if any at all. If this isn't true, then we know that someone is out of their vertical space.

These are the plays for which basketball officials earn their money. These are the plays in which our judgment is tested and an application of the advantage/disadvantage philosophy is needed. In short, these are the plays which separate the best from the rest.

In the cases in which A1 causes or initiates the contact, you seem to be quite fine ruling that the contact is incidental and not a foul on A1 (or B1). However, when B1 causes the contact, the fact that you posted this indicates that you are having trouble making that same determination.

Ask yourself, why you are allowing the player with the ball to cause contact and not calling a player control foul? I'm not saying that you should, but you need to have a good reason. Now ask yourself, if you are treating the defender the same way as the offensive player when the defender creates a similar amount of contact in these situations? Are you calling blocking or pushing fouls on the defender or are you still ruling the contact to be incidental?

However you rule, I hope that you are treating the offensive player and the defensive player equally.

Afterall, recall what is written in the Intent and Purpose of the Rules that appears near the beginning of each edition of the rules book:

"The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense."

Therefore, my advice for ruling on these contact situations is to strive to be fair to both players involved and not to give preference to the player with the ball just because they do have the ball. Whether you call fouls on the player who initates the contact or not is up to you, but having firmness in your convictions on these situations, which is of paramount importance, will allow you to apply a consistent standard and be seen as a quality official.

[Rick82358]

Well nothing more needs to be said.
I am going to borrow that one Nevada and use it with those younger officials I work with.
The check is in the mail.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Rick82358
Well nothing more needs to be said.
I am going to borrow that one Nevada and use it with those younger officials I work with.
The check is in the mail.

Please do so, Rick. I appreciate the complement and the check.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I say that because you have described a couple of situations that involve players going up in vertical planes and yet contact occurs.

I'll point out that if both players really are going straight up in their vertical planes there shouldn't be much contact if any at all. If this isn't true, then we know that someone is out of their vertical space.

Nevada, this isn't true at all in my experience. It's easy to have full-body contact if both players sort of ease into their positions so gradually and so gently that there's no foul to be called. Then when they go up, if that contact continues, there's no foul without displacement and the sitch I'm describing involves no displacement.


Okay, it's clear that I didn't describe that last scenario very well. I'll try again.

First, some factoids. B1 never moves into A1's space. There is no displacement by either player. A1 may move arms or hands into B1's space a little bit, but not enough to call a PC. The contact at the end of the play is not enough to call a foul, if that contact is continuous, but it isn't. It is sudden and sharp.

Think of a person standing flat-footed facing away from a wall, with heels about six inches away. Her body is parallel to the wall, but her arms reach backward so that her fingers touch the wall. Conversely, think of a person with her nose and toes touching the wall, but arms backward so that her hands are about a foot from the wall.

That is the position B1 has before the questionable contact. A1 and B1 have full body contact, but B1's arms are in the backward "locked and loaded" position. A1's arms are almost fully extended with the ball nearly leaving the grip. Just as A1 pushes and shoots the ball, she reaches a little forward to guide the ball toward the basket, so that her arms and hands are slightly into B1's space. At that same moment, B1 snaps her arms forward so that they meet A1's arms sharply, but entirely above B1's head, and never out of B1's plane.

My point here is that B1 never loses LGP, and never violates A1's space. Yet the contact is a hit, so it has the appearance of a foul, and it affects the ball. But it's A1 into B1's space, not the other way around. But it looks like a foul because B1 "initiates" contact, and clearly hits A1's arms, but in B1's own space. So I guess the philosophical question is, how sacrosanct is B1's space?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Same as when the defender has hands straight up, then pikes the arms down on the shooter, then goes straight up again - and gives you the shocked look when you call the foul .

My play isn't the same at all. When the defender "pikes the arms down on the shooter", the defender is violating the shooter's space. In my play the defender never reaches her arms out of her own space, never violates the shooter's space. So you're comparing apples to asparagus.

[Dan_ref]

Juulie, I agree with you that there can be considerable legal contact when both players maintain their own vertical space. Not only legal body contact, but more importantly legl arm contact.

As for your play - the way I envision this B1 is swatting at A1 and makes contact with A1's arms as she continues her swatting motion and before A1 releases the ball. I have a foul here. Look at the definition of verticality in the book, you'll see that B1 is essentially allowed to stand still and/or jump within her vertical plane. Moving her arms forward into her vertical plane (swatting) is not listed as legal action.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Juulie, I agree with you that there can be considerable legal contact when both players maintain their own vertical space. Not only legal body contact, but more importantly legl arm contact.

As for your play - the way I envision this B1 is swatting at A1 and makes contact with A1's arms as she continues her swatting motion and before A1 releases the ball. I have a foul here. Look at the definition of verticality in the book, you'll see that B1 is essentially allowed to stand still and/or jump within her vertical plane. Moving her arms forward into her vertical plane (swatting) is not listed as legal action.

The phrase I see here that seems definitive to me is "maintains her own vertical space." In my play, when B1 moves her arms backward, she gives up her legal right to that space directly above her own head. B1 can maintain that space, but can't regain it once A1 uses it. Eh?

[just another ref]

4.45 Art. 5 & Art. 7

[Edited by just another ref on Dec 28th, 2005 at 02:10 PM]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

My point here is that B1 never loses LGP, and never violates A1's space. Yet the contact is a hit, so it has the appearance of a foul, and it affects the ball. But it's A1 into B1's space, not the other way around. But it looks like a foul because B1 "initiates" contact, and clearly hits A1's arms, but in B1's own space. So I guess the philosophical question is, how sacrosanct is B1's space?

LGP is not the only factor in determining a foul. In fact, LGP is only relevant for block/charge. A player may have LGP and remain entirely in their vertical plane and commit other types of fouls. Wherever shooter A1's arm's are (in A1's plane, over B1, to the side, etc.), B1 may not move their arms to create contact with A1 in any way other than raising them straight up as in a jump.

Another example: If B1's arms were straight up and shoulder width apart with A1 shooting between them, B1 may not collapse them together to create contact with the shooter's arms. If they do, it is a foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

LGP is not the only factor in determining a foul. In fact, LGP is only relevant for block/charge. A player may have LGP and remain entirely in their vertical plane and commit other types of fouls. Wherever shooter A1's arm's are (in A1's plane, over B1, to the side, etc.), B1 may not move their arms to create contact with A1 in any way other than raising them straight up as in a jump.

Another example: If B1's arms were straight up and shoulder width apart with A1 shooting between them, B1 may not collapse them together to create contact with the shooter's arms. If they do, it is a foul.

Hmmm..... I'll have to think about that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

The phrase I see here that seems definitive to me is "maintains her own vertical space." In my play, when B1 moves her arms backward, she gives up her legal right to that space directly above her own head. B1 can maintain that space, but can't regain it once A1 uses it. Eh? [/B]

You're over-thinking this type of play imo.

If you think the defender initiated the contact, call the foul on him/her.

If you think the shooter is initiating the contact, then it's a PC foul or no-call.

If you don't think anyone is getting an advantage through the contact, simply let it go.

It's a judgement call- always. Don't over-analyze it, just call it.

Jmo.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You're over-thinking this type of play imo.

If you think the defender initiated the contact, call the foul on him/her.

If you think the shooter is initiating the contact, then it's a PC foul or no-call.

If you don't think anyone is getting an advantage through the contact, simply let it go.

It's a judgement call- always. Don't over-analyze it, just call it.

Jmo.

[/B]

My opinion too - just call it.

I look at it this way: if the defender swats and the ball is not blocked it's a foul. If you no-call these then you'll have players on both ends swatting at everything.