Incidental contact

[REFVA]

By the explanation of the poster, I would not have called it. Yet I can only imagine the defender was probably riding the offensive player and mostly likely the contact might have not been incidental. Yet keep in mind incidental contact if the offense was not put at a disadvantage. which in this case it sound like the offense lost the ball. I would have liked to see the play, Positioning as always means a lot. seeing from different angles will defenitely give you a better call.

Originally Posted by REFVA

By the explanation of the poster, I would not have called it. Yet I can only imagine the defender was probably riding the offensive player and mostly likely the contact might have not been incidental. Yet keep in mind incidental contact if the offense was not put at a disadvantage. which in this case it sound like the offense lost the ball. I would have liked to see the play, Positioning as always means a lot. seeing from different angles will defenitely give you a better call.

Here is what I observed. the offensive player was dribbling up the right side of the court just entering the frontcourt. I was the trail coming up just behind the play. The defender was running alongside on the left and really not making a play on the ball when the their feet brushed together and the offensive player stumbled and lost the ball. I explained to the quite upset coach of the offense that it was incidental contact. He told me if the offensive player is tripped, it has to be a foul. I disagreed - he said I was clueless - his opponents got to shoot two foul shots.

I do agree with a previous poster who said its much easier to explain the foul than the no-call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by MPLAHE

I disagreed - he said I was clueless - his opponents got to shoot two foul shots.

As noted here, the penalty for not calling this a foul is two shots and the ball at the division line.

[btaylor64]

Gentlemen I don't post here to argue, and I barely post to debate a topic, nor do I post anything that is my own personal opinion. Everything I post I have taken from some very high level officials, and I assume that to be the best you have to learn from the best and that is just what I am doing and trying to express here.

Jurassic Referee I understand what you are meaning in replying to my post. I believe you are saying that almost always is too much and that I'm saying that a trip or tangle of feet is always a foul. I am not saying that and I shouldn't have used 99% as how much I call this. I agree 100% with you about each play having its own merit and should be judged as such, but like someone said earlier it is a whole lot easier to sell a trip foul than to no call a trip foul. Are there going to be plays where two players are next to each other and the offensive player just trips themselves? Sure there are, and that is why you have to have a high level of concentration at all times.


MPLAHE,

From the play you described, I have a tripping foul. Don't try to think too hard into the defender having LGP and therefore leaving the onus on the dribbler. they are both side by side meaning that the offensive player has his head and shoulders past the defender. If the kids' feet get tangled up don't be afraid to blow the whistle. I would much rather go to the team of the defensive player's coach and tell him I blew it rather than going to the irate offensive team's coach and trying to sell him that I got the call right or even go over and tell him I missed it because he is going to tell you yeah he and everybody else saw that you missed it too. Whack!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1) Everything I post I have taken from some very high level officials, and I assume that to be the best you have to learn from the best and that is just what I am doing and trying to express here.

2) Jurassic Referee I understand what you are meaning in replying to my post. I believe you are saying that almost always is too much and that I'm saying that a trip or tangle of feet is always a foul. I am not saying that and I shouldn't have used 99% as how much I call this. I agree 100% with you about each play having its own merit and should be judged as such, but like someone said earlier it is a whole lot easier to sell a trip foul than to no call a trip foul. Are there going to be plays where two players are next to each other and the offensive player just trips themselves? Sure there are, and that is why you have to have a high level of concentration at all times.

1) Btaylor, saying that "very high level officials" agree with your personal stance is the oldest posting ploy in the world. Your philosophy/opinion should stand on it's merits, and imo this particular philosophy/opinion of your's is meritless- "very high level officials" notwithstanding. We disagree philosophically. It's that simple. Btw, I know a lot of "very high level officials" too. I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night also. It's true, it's true.....

2) Personally, I really don't worry about selling anything. I worry about getting the call/no call right. If I know that I've made the right call, I could care less what any coach thinks of it. Any call that goes against their team is wrong from the git-go anyway. Jmo, but it might behoove you to stop worrying so much about what the coaches think when you make a call or ignore incidental contact. If you're looking for approval, you're in the wrong racket.

Again, jmo. Don't take it personally.

[REFVA]

I may not agree with this next comment all the time, but my assoication wants us to make the call. If there is any contact and a player hits the floor from contact and it's not an accademy award move, meaning it was legitimate. Make the call. It's easier to sell than no call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by REFVA

I may not agree with this next comment all the time, but my assoication wants us to make the call. If there is any contact and a player hits the floor from contact and it's not an accademy award move, meaning it was legitimate. Make the call. It's easier to sell than no call.

Did your association tell you to call it on the defender 99% of the time too?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by REFVA

I may not agree with this next comment all the time, but my assoication wants us to make the call. If there is any contact and a player hits the floor from contact and it's not an accademy award move, meaning it was legitimate. Make the call. It's easier to sell than no call.

As stated many times on many different subjects, it may be a regional thing. I live in Virginia, the prominent ref's I run across work in the ACC. I have heard from more than one ACC ref that the play described by MPLAHE is expected to be called as a foul on the defender.

I'll never work in the ACC, however, all the camps I attend in hopes of one day breaking into D2 or D3 are heavily populated with ACC officials holding notepads, so when I'm in those camps, I'm going to make that call.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MPLAHE

Here is what I observed. the offensive player was dribbling up the right side of the court just entering the frontcourt. I was the trail coming up just behind the play. The defender was running alongside on the left and really not making a play on the ball when the their feet brushed together and the offensive player stumbled and lost the ball. I explained to the quite upset coach of the offense that it was incidental contact. He told me if the offensive player is tripped, it has to be a foul. I disagreed - he said I was clueless - his opponents got to shoot two foul shots.

As described, I have a foul on the defense in this play.

Regarding the percentages posted earlier -- I think that when this play happens in the "open court" it usually is a foul on the defense. When the offensive player drives to the hoop (especially when s/he's "out of control"), the likelihood of it being a foul goes down.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by MPLAHE

Here is what I observed. the offensive player was dribbling up the right side of the court just entering the frontcourt. I was the trail coming up just behind the play. The defender was running alongside on the left and really not making a play on the ball when the their feet brushed together and the offensive player stumbled and lost the ball. I explained to the quite upset coach of the offense that it was incidental contact. He told me if the offensive player is tripped, it has to be a foul. I disagreed - he said I was clueless - his opponents got to shoot two foul shots.

I do agree with a previous poster who said its much easier to explain the foul than the no-call.

The correct call is a foul on B1 for this play. B1 didn't have LGP so is responsible for any contact that leads to an advantage.

BTW, I normally have a foul on a defender lying on the ground who inadvertently trips up an opponent with the ball.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The correct call is a foul on B1 for this play. B1 didn't have LGP so is responsible for any contact that leads to an advantage.

Sometimes I'm a smart-@ss, but this is an honest question. How do we know whether B1 had LGP or not? The play doesn't tell us that. All the play says is that they were running side-by-side.

All you have to do to establish LGP is to have both feet on the floor and be facing your opponent. Once you've done that, you can move any direction (including straight up) and maintain that LGP. As long as B1 is not moving towards A1 when their feet tangle, B1 has done nothing wrong (assuming LGP was established -- two feet on the floor and facing A1 -- prior to the contact).

It may look ugly and clumsy, but if B1 established that LGP and isn't moving toward A1, you cannot (by rule) have a foul on B1.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Sometimes I'm a smart-@ss, but this is an honest question. How do we know whether B1 had LGP or not? The play doesn't tell us that. All the play says is that they were running side-by-side.

Because the OP didn't say he had LGP, he just said B1 & A1 was running side by side. Just using the facts at hand.

Even if he HAD said B1 established LGP the way I envision this play is that A1 at some point had head & shoulders past B1.

Even if he HAD said B1 maintained LGP the way I envision this play B1 moved into A1.

So the only way B1 had LGP during the contact was that B1 established it, he didn't let A1 get head & shoulders past him & B1 did not move into A1 to initiate contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Because the OP didn't say he had LGP, he just said B1 & A1 was running side by side. Just using the facts at hand.

Even if he HAD said B1 established LGP the way I envision this play is that A1 at some point had head & shoulders past B1.

Even if he HAD said B1 maintained LGP the way I envision this play B1 moved into A1.

So the only way B1 had LGP during the contact was that B1 established it, he didn't let A1 get head & shoulders past him & B1 did not move into A1 to initiate contact.

So what?

The dribbler getting his head and shoulders past a defender doesn't automatically(99%) mean that the foul is on the defender, does it?

The pertinent rule- NFHS 10-6-2 says "If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent.". The rule says "greater responsibility"; it doesn't say "total responsibility". That's why I think that it's not an automatic foul on the defender and you have to judge each play on it's own merits.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

So what?

The dribbler getting his head and shoulders past a defender doesn't automatically(99%) mean that the foul is on the defender, does it?

The pertinent rule- NFHS 10-6-2 says "If a dribbler, without contact, sufficiently passes an opponent to have head and shoulders in advance of that opponent, the greater responsibility for subsequent contact is on the opponent.". The rule says "greater responsibility"; it doesn't say "total responsibility". That's why I think that it's not an automatic foul on the defender and you have to judge each play on it's own merits.

Ya know, I looked and I looked and I looked again...but I cannot find a single time where I used the word automatically in this thread.

Until now.