OK, we're bored. Topic: Rules never called. Discuss

[WooPigSooie]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

This rule simply states that a player who is OOB can't have LGP. It doesn't say they can't be fouled. If the foul doesn't depend on LGP, you can still have an offensive foul.

The case book gives an example of a player, in the process of guarding another player, steps on the line and is contacted while the foot is OOB. It is a block since the contact occured while the defender didn't have LGP at the time of contact and needed to have it (defender was actively guarding/moving) in order for it to be a charge.

Also, don't be confused by the lowering of the shoulder. It's ALL about LGP. If the defender is moving toward the dribbler and is not in a LGP it can be his foul even if the offensive player lowers his shoulder. The offensive player is not reqired to collide with the defender in any specific orientation in order to draw a foul. Howveer, the lowering of the shoulder is a clue to who caused the contact if the defender is legal.





[Edited by Camron Rust on Mar 14th, 2006 at 09:12 PM]

First of all, I appreciate the help, Camron, but I am going to have to disagree with you based on what rules meetings I have been to in my area. They have stressed that NO MATTER what the defender is doing (shuffling the feet to keep pace with the defender, etc), if the offensive player does an act (and they usually use the lowering the shoulder example) to create separation, it should be called an offesive foul. Are my rules people off on this? That is why I asked the question originally because I have been drilled with the fact that an offensive player lowering the shoulder should be called a PC foul.

[Nevadaref]

Camron is correct. He has it nailed down to the fine details. The people in your area telling you otherwise don't seem to know the rules as well as Camron does.

What he posted above is an excellent piece on how to properly handle these situations.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WooPigSooie

First of all, I appreciate the help, Camron, but I am going to have to disagree with you based on what rules meetings I have been to in my area. They have stressed that NO MATTER what the defender is doing (shuffling the feet to keep pace with the defender, etc), if the offensive player does an act (and they usually use the lowering the shoulder example) to create separation, it should be called an offesive foul. Are my rules people off on this? That is why I asked the question originally because I have been drilled with the fact that an offensive player lowering the shoulder should be called a PC foul.

I think that you might be missing the key point of Camron's response above. The call for a dribbler lowering a shoulder into the torso of a defender does depend on whether that defender had LGP or not. A dribbler pushing off with an arm doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with LGP and can be a PC foul.

[WooPigSooie]

Ok, I am not sure if you guys are still on the topic of the OOB portion of this question...

But I dont care what you say, if a defender is in any type of guarding position that is not impeding the offensive player and the offensive player initiates contact through lower the shoulder in an attempt to create separation or gaining position, I am going to call that everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.....

That is why I asked the original question of whether or not the OOB or the lowering the shoulder takes precedent.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WooPigSooie

But I dont care what you say, if a defender is in any type of guarding position that is not impeding the offensive player and the offensive player initiates contact through lower the shoulder in an attempt to create separation or gaining position, I am going to call that everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.....

That's fine. You don't have to care what anybody here says. That's certainly your right and privilege.

Imo though, you're completely wrong and so is whoever is interpreting the rules in your area. Specifically you're mis-interpreting case book play 4.23.3SitB(a).

Btw, if you don't care what anybody says, why did you bother asking the question in the first place?

[Forksref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Definitely NOT the least called foul. Perhaps the foul that doesn't get properly named very often.

I expect the least called infraction is hitting the ball with a fist. I've never heard of anyone ever calling it, never heard it brought up in meetings, never heard the rule even mentioned anywhere.

Never seen it happen, so that's why I've never seen it called.

[Corndog89]

How about 10 seconds to shoot a foul shot?

I called it once in a rec game a few years ago (only time I've ever seen it called). Early in the game some guy took like 13-14 seconds to shoot a foul shot. I "suggested" to him that on future foul shots he shoot within 10 seconds. Later, in the 2nd half, he has two shots. First shot, again a 13-14 second count (and I count slowly). Sure enough, on the next shot he does it again, so when I got to 10 I gave him the whistle.

Fast forward to an association meeting earlier this season and this rule came up. When our rules interpretor asked if anyone had ever seen it called, I said yes, I had called it once. He, and everyone else in the room for that matter, looked at me like I was from another planet. Come to think of it, maybe I am.

[mplagrow]

Wow, that's impressive. I think the highest I've ever gotten is 8 seconds, and that's a pretty slow count!

[Time2Ref]

Last week, I saw a kid fake his foul shot. It was a two shot foul. He did it on the first shot...nobody moved. I couldn't believe it and thought he must have lost his grip or something. He did it again on the second shot. I caught him on his way to the bench and told him to stop it. He stopped.

[observer]

10 second violation on the free throw
shooter...I have never had to call it
in the 34 years of being licensed.

[ChuckElias]

Just a tip, guys. If you start your post with, "I only saw this once, 20 years ago. . ." or "I've only called this once. . ." then it doesn't qualify. The very first response in this thread is the winner, b/c it's never been called: multiple foul.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Just a tip, guys. If you start your post with, "I only saw this once, 20 years ago. . ." or "I've only called this once. . ." then it doesn't qualify. The very first response in this thread is the winner, b/c it's never been called: multiple foul.

Well, I hate to keep on torturing you like this but your statement is not exactly true.

During a cyo type game as a relative newbie I called a foul on B1. B2, being smart, realized B1 was getting in foul trouble and he followed me to the table begging for the foul.

So I gave it to him. And to B1.

[mplagrow]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Well, I hate to keep on torturing you like this but your statement is not exactly true.

During a cyo type game as a relative newbie I called a foul on B1. B2, being smart, realized B1 was getting in foul trouble and he followed me to the table begging for the foul.

So I gave it to him. And to B1.

Congratulations on being the first and only ref to admitting to calling the multiple foul! And great circumstances, too. Next time that happens, I'll have to remember that one!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Just a tip, guys. If you start your post with, "I only saw this once, 20 years ago. . ." or "I've only called this once. . ." then it doesn't qualify. The very first response in this thread is the winner, b/c it's never been called: multiple foul.

It sureasheck has been called. I had a partner call this in a game in my first year. Great guy too. Still a good friend to this day.

He never called it again though, after the crap he took from his peers for making that call.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
During a cyo type game as a relative newbie I called a foul on B1. B2, being smart, realized B1 was getting in foul trouble and he followed me to the table begging for the foul.

So I gave it to him. And to B1.

I don't believe you. And even if I did. . . shut up.