push with ball

[just another ref]

I continue to wade thru the gargantuan study guide as I prepare for the test on Monday. Your tolerance for a couple more days is appreciated. Yes, I know something like this has been addressed before.

Thrower-in A1 reaches across the line and uses the ball to push B1 in the chest, displacing him in the process. Ruling: unsportsmanlike technical on A1

False

Is there a specific written reference to anything along these lines or do we just assume that the restrictions on contact (player shall not push.....etc.)
would apply to a push with the ball the same as a push with the bare hand.
Also, the fact that A1 is the thrower-in, thus legally out of bounds, is not significant in this play, is it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Thrower-in A1 reaches across the line and uses the ball to push B1 in the chest, displacing him in the process. Ruling: unsportsmanlike technical on A1

False

Is there a specific written reference to anything along these lines or do we just assume that the restrictions on contact (player shall not push.....etc.)
would apply to a push with the ball the same as a push with the bare hand.
Also, the fact that A1 is the thrower-in, thus legally out of bounds, is not significant in this play, is it?

I'd use casebook play 10.3.7SitB as a guide. It's kinda similar in that you have a thrower contacting a defender with the ball. The only real difference is that he releases the ball first in the case play.

It's a judgment call and you should use the same criteria as the ruling of the case play imo:
- Was it a voluntary, planned act?
- Was the ball contact caused by the movement of the defender?
- Was the act of an unsporting nature?

If your answers are yes, no and yes, then call an unsporting technical foul of some kind on the thrower. That would also make the answer True btw.

[palmettoref]

This sounds like an intentional personal foul to me. It is the same thing as the defender reaching through the boundary plane and touching the thrower ---> an interntional personal foul. Also, because an unsporting foul is a noncontact tech foul by definition, I would hesitate in calling this case play as unsporting. IMO.

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I continue to wade thru the gargantuan study guide as I prepare for the test on Monday.

____________________________

So what is this infamous study guide people keep referring to? Is this a FIBA or an IAABO item?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I continue to wade thru the gargantuan study guide as I prepare for the test on Monday. Your tolerance for a couple more days is appreciated. Yes, I know something like this has been addressed before.

Is the gargantuan study guide you refer to the LHSAA Basketball Study Guide? I downloaded it last week after I read about it in this forum, but now I can't find the answers, so I'm not always sure whether I'm right or wrong. Where did you get your answers?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Is the gargantuan study guide you refer to the LHSAA Basketball Study Guide? I downloaded it last week after I read about it in this forum, but now I can't find the answers, so I'm not always sure whether I'm right or wrong. Where did you get your answers?

From the rule book, the case book, and from here. And there are still one or two questions that I am unsure of the answer.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'd use casebook play 10.3.7SitB as a guide. It's kinda similar in that you have a thrower contacting a defender with the ball. The only real difference is that he releases the ball first in the case play.

It's a judgment call and you should use the same criteria as the ruling of the case play imo:
- Was it a voluntary, planned act?
- Was the ball contact caused by the movement of the defender?
- Was the act of an unsporting nature?

If your answers are yes, no and yes, then call an unsporting technical foul of some kind on the thrower. That would also make the answer True btw.

I was not picturing this casebook play to be applicable. Throwing the ball and striking an opponent in the face would, in my mind, be totally different than a push (it might have even been a gentle push) in the chest.
If A1 screamed "Get outa my face, you *****!" and then violently shoved B1 with the ball, I might have a technical, but picture a small kid making this play, who obviously can't see over/around the defender. He/she instinctively gives a subtle push to the opponent's chest with the ball, giving him/herself a little breathing room to make a pass. Unless there is a specific rule about contact with the ball, or a specific rule about a foul by the thrower-in reaching through the line, (I am aware of neither) I say this could be a common foul. I also put this question on the list of those that do not translate well from game conditions to paper.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

This sounds like an intentional personal foul to me. It is the same thing as the defender reaching through the boundary plane and touching the thrower ---> an interntional personal foul. Also, because an unsporting foul is a noncontact tech foul by definition, I would hesitate in calling this case play as unsporting. IMO.

the reason for the T is that the contact was not player to player, but ball to player. A1 throws the ball at B1's head, you can't call a personal foul; T is your only option.
This is different because of the fact that A1 hasn't released the ball, and the intent is less than malicious. Personally, I'm likely to call an intentional personal if it actually happens as posted.

[BillyMac]

I'd like to put similar plays "on the court".

While a live ball is being held by A-1 in his/her frontcourt:

1) A-1 intentionally throws the ball at B-1's head.

2) A-1, uses the ball to push B-1, to try to gain an advantage by creating some space between himself/herself and the defender, B-1.

What are the correct calls? Personal or technical ? Common, intentional, or flagrant ? Do the calls change if A-1 is an inbounder ?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'd use casebook play 10.3.7SitB as a guide. It's kinda similar in that you have a thrower contacting a defender with the ball. The only real difference is that he releases the ball first in the case play.

It's a judgment call and you should use the same criteria as the ruling of the case play imo:
- Was it a voluntary, planned act?
- Was the ball contact caused by the movement of the defender?
- Was the act of an unsporting nature?

If your answers are yes, no and yes, then call an unsporting technical foul of some kind on the thrower. That would also make the answer True btw.

Hold on a second here Mr Big Dawg.

Isn't it true that a live ball contact foul is never a technical foul? Wouldn't this be a personal intentional or flagrant foul? But never a technical foul?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by refnrev

____________________________

So what is this infamous study guide people keep referring to? Is this a FIBA or an IAABO item?

I believe they are referring to NCAA. We actually discussed this exact play (using FED) at our last meeting. It had some interesting discussion.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Hold on a second here Mr Big Dawg.

Isn't it true that a live ball contact foul is never a technical foul? Wouldn't this be a personal intentional or flagrant foul? But never a technical foul?

Wouldn't that depend on whether you considered that contacting an opponent with the ball is the same as "contact"? You could easily argue that the thrower never touched the defender. Which would leave you with an unsporting technical as the best answer.

If you considered that contacting the defender with the ball is contact, then yes, you've got a live ball foul. In that case, you've got a personal or intentional.

I like the intentional or flagrant better, but if you say that contacting the opponent with the ball is "contact," then you open a small can of worms. Like what if, on a drive the basket, the ball gets stuck between the driver and defender. If contact with the ball is "contact," we have a foul. And we don't want to go there.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Hold on a second here Mr Big Dawg.

Isn't it true that a live ball contact foul is never a technical foul? Wouldn't this be a personal intentional or flagrant foul? But never a technical foul?

Gee, Slapster, when they said "live ball contact", I don't think they really meant that the contact had to be made with a live ball.

What's the difference between throwing the ball and hitting someone and holding the ball and hitting someone with it? Other than the player letting go of the ball in one instance, the hittee is still smucked with the ball, isn't he/she?

Notice the he/she. I'm an equal opportunity smucker.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, Slapster, when they said "live ball contact", I don't think they really meant that the contact had to be made with a live ball.

What's the difference between throwing the ball and hitting someone and holding the ball and hitting someone with it? Other than the player letting go of the ball in one instance, the hittee is still smucked with the ball, isn't he/she?

errr....aren't both actions personal fouls if they occur when the ball is live?

I'm an equal opportunity schmucker.

We agree.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What's the difference between throwing the ball and hitting someone and holding the ball and hitting someone with it?

The verb used in this situation is push, not hit.

What's the difference in a subtle push to clear out your opponent while rebounding and slapping your opponent hard in the face? Both can involve use of the open hand. Apples and oranges.