Everyone on the floor.

[psycho_ref]

Can anyone give me advice on how to referee players when they are all over the hardwood. I mean cleaning it, waxing it with their shirts, diving all over the place. I have a hard time officiating the contact when players start diving for loose balls and there is tons of contact, and usually I tend to pass on it.

The rules are clear on travelling while in these positions, but not too much on contact, space entitlement and fouls.

Where and how does the rule of verticality apply, or does it, when I am laying on my back. Or sitting up on my buttocks. What is my legal space when I am in these positions and what am I entitled to?

Any rule references or articles would be great. Although I don't think there is much on this.

Thanks.

[mick]

Originally posted by psycho_ref
Can anyone give me advice on how to referee players when they are all over the hardwood. I mean cleaning it, waxing it with their shirts, diving all over the place. I have a hard time officiating the contact when players start diving for loose balls and there is tons of contact, and usually I tend to pass on it.

psycho_ref,
Sometimes there are no fouls when the players are actually focusing on the loose ball.

But often, when the game slows down for you, you can observe a player jumping on an opponent's back, grabbing an opponent's arm, pushing an opponent into the floor.

It'll come.
mick

[Nevadaref]

If you observe a player purposely push or hold an opponent in these situations, then you need to call a foul. Otherwise, you probably just have incidental contact. Read what is included in that rule and you won't feel bad about not making foul calls in many of these cases.


RULE 4, SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.
ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.

ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.
...

[lmeadski]

we focus on kids who dive onto the top of other kids when trying to gain control. In the situation you described, I bet this type of contact happened at least once. And I dont mean two kids that were both on the hardwood and one ends on top of another as they wrestle for the ball: I mean a kid who breaks his dive to the floor with another players body.

[Ref in PA]

What I see a lot is A1 is going for the loose ball and diving for it. B1 has a clear path to the loose ball but instead dives to put his body between the ball and A1, contacting A1, essentially pushing him aside. It is a little like boxing out, but B1 does not have the previously established position. To me that is a foul on B1, it is a blocking foul. If they were standing up, you would not let that kind of contact go on, yet when there is a loose ball, many refs allow all sorts of contact go.

[SeanFitzRef]

How about when two players are going for a loose ball at mid-court? BV: A4 and B3 both homing in on the ball; B3 a little quicker. Violent collision at midcourt, everyone in the gym can see it, but B3 nor A4 did anything illegal to gain control of the ball. B3 comes up with the ball and scores, and Team A coach is screaming for a foul.

"Incidental contact, coach. They both have a right to the ball."

Exact same scenario as above, but instead of two 17-18 year olds, two 9 year olds. Same play, same collision, A4 ends up with a concussion.

"Incidental contact, coach. They both have a right to the ball."

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
What I see a lot is A1 is going for the loose ball and diving for it. B1 has a clear path to the loose ball but instead dives to put his body between the ball and A1, contacting A1, essentially pushing him aside. It is a little like boxing out, but B1 does not have the previously established position. To me that is a foul on B1, it is a blocking foul. If they were standing up, you would not let that kind of contact go on, yet when there is a loose ball, many refs allow all sorts of contact go.

Exactly.

[mplagrow]

What if B1 is clearly behind A1, and A1 is going for a loose ball. If B1, in going for the ball, nails A1 from behind, is it considered loose-ball and unintentional? Both players have a right to the ball? Or should position be considered?

[Raymond]

Originally posted by mplagrow
What if B1 is clearly behind A1, and A1 is going for a loose ball. If B1, in going for the ball, nails A1 from behind, is it considered loose-ball and unintentional? Both players have a right to the ball? Or should position be considered?

MPLagrow: What would your answer be if instead of saying "going for a loose ball, you say "going for a rebound"?

In your scenario, A1 has favorable position, and the severe contact initiated by B1 puts A1 at a disadvantage.

There are players out there, especially in Adult Rec Leagues where I officiate, who think "loose-ball" situations are license to wallop an opponent in an "attempt" to get to the ball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by mplagrow
What if B1 is clearly behind A1, and A1 is going for a loose ball. If B1, in going for the ball, nails A1 from behind, is it considered loose-ball and unintentional? Both players have a right to the ball? Or should position be considered?

Would it be a foul if they were standing?

There is no "loose ball" foul in NFHS rules. And as far as I can tell, the rules do not become different based on whether the players are standing or diving on the floor. Also, I try not to be pedantic about proper terms, but the word "unintentional" has no meaning in this context. Most fouls are unintentional. Incidental is probably the word you meant, and it has great significance here. So does position.

Have a look at what NevedaRef posted from the rule on incidental contact. Article 2 introduces the notion of "equally favorable positions." And Article 3 includes language about "not hinder[ing] the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements."

In your scenario, A1 is clearly in a more favorable position. And it sounds like B1 is hindering A1's normal offensive movements by contacting him/her from behind. So by both measures B1's contact should not be considered incidental contact.

[Back In The Saddle]

I guess I should read the whole thread before jumping in Good answer, BadNewsRef.

[Adam]

Originally posted by SeanFitzRef
How about when two players are going for a loose ball at mid-court? BV: A4 and B3 both homing in on the ball; B3 a little quicker. Violent collision at midcourt, everyone in the gym can see it, but B3 nor A4 did anything illegal to gain control of the ball. B3 comes up with the ball and scores, and Team A coach is screaming for a foul.

"Incidental contact, coach. They both have a right to the ball."

Exact same scenario as above, but instead of two 17-18 year olds, two 9 year olds. Same play, same collision, A4 ends up with a concussion.

"Incidental contact, coach. They both have a right to the ball."

The level of contact allowed among high school players is considerably higher than the contact allowed with elementary players. I'm more likely to call something here to keep control of the younger players.