Layup

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Where's Chuck?

He's at home in front of the mirror practicing his mechanics.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He's at home in front of the mirror practicing his mechanics.

Either that or he's out buying an extra-large economy box of DEPENDS for Wednesday night.

[dkitch]

I'm relatively new to this whole reffing thing, but I would call a flagrant foul on A2. Whether or not B1 had LGP is irrelevant, since this is not a block/charge situation.

If B1 was guarding A2, and A2 punched him in the face, the foul would still be on A2 no matter what. From how you described it, Dan, A2 made deliberate contact with B1 and the contact was excessive.

Not sure of the NCAA rules, but from NFHS:

Justification for the foul is found under NFHS 10-6-1, "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...blah blah blah...; nor use any rough tactics.."

And for justification on the flagrant:
NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking, and kneeing..."

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

Justification for the foul is found under NFHS 10-6-1, "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent...blah blah blah...; nor use any rough tactics.."

And for justification on the flagrant:
NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking, and kneeing..."

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

That wasn't how I read it at all. I read it as A2 took an unnecessary step in order to step on B1. If A2 is looking down at B1 and then steps on him, I have a flagerant intentional foul - intent to injure. If A2 is looking at the basket in an effort to shoot and looses his balance due to B1 I have a common foul on B1.

[dkitch]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That wasn't how I read it at all. I read it as A2 took an unnecessary step in order to step on B1. If A2 is looking down at B1 and then steps on him, I have a flagerant intentional foul - intent to injure. If A2 is looking at the basket in an effort to shoot and looses his balance due to B1 I have a common foul on B1.

Yeah, in the original post Dan said that the A2 looked down at B1 then stepped on him, which is why I have the flagrant intentional on A2. If A2 hadn't looked before he stepped, I'd have the foul on B1. The key here is intent.

[rockyroad]

Dan, the AR you are referring to was added just a couple of years ago, and was specifically explained (at least to us) to cover plays where the defender falls and that causes the offensive player to fall...I don't think this situation is the same thing. As you said in your post, he looked down, saw the defender and then stepped on him - I'm thinking Intentional here...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

I have the flagrant intentional on A2.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I have a flagerant intentional foul

No such animal.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No such animal.

I have to disagree.

NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul . . . may or may not be intentional."

The foul is personal (illegal contact), intentional (premeditated) and flagrant (violent).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I have to disagree.

NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul . . . may or may not be intentional."

The foul is personal (illegal contact), intentional (premeditated) and flagrant (violent).

The act may be intentional. It was simply a bad usage of terminolgy by whoever wrote this one. They should have have used a word like "deliberate" instead of "intentional".

As Bob said, there is no such animal as an intentional flagrant foul- either peronal or technical. The foul may be "intentional" or "flagrant, but it can't be both.

We've gone over this exact same point many times to-date already on this forum.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

Yeah, in the original post Dan said that the A2 looked down at B1 then stepped on him, which is why I have the flagrant intentional on A2. If A2 hadn't looked before he stepped, I'd have the foul on B1. The key here is intent.

Right but how can you judge intent if he immediatley shot the ball after stepping? What if you interpret it that he looked down and saw that in order to take the most direct path to the basket, he had a player in his way but pulling out could result in a turnover. His intent was to score a basket, B1 impeded that progress.

From the first post: "A2 is standing under the basket so he takes a step to his right but can't because B1 is lying there on his side with his arms covering his head."

What do you expect A2 to do, it seems he took the only option he could to get a shot off. Should he have waited for B1 to get up or roll out of the way?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Just to clarify, you're saying 10-6-1 has the foul on B1 right? Because this scenerio seems to be impeding the progress an opponent to me.

Based on the report, A2 stepped on B1 to be able to get a better shot at the basket. In other words, if B1 wasn't impeding A2's progress to the basket, A2 wouldn't have stepped on him. That all seems pretty clear to me.

It may be impeding, but it's not illegal -- in HS. College is different. In HS, anyone is allowed her spot, if she gets there legally, even if that place is temporarily stretched out on the floor. In HS, in this play, whether A1 looks or not, if you call a foul, it can't be a block.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It may be impeding, but it's not illegal -- in HS. College is different. In HS, anyone is allowed her spot, if she gets there legally, even if that place is temporarily stretched out on the floor. In HS, in this play, whether A1 looks or not, if you call a foul, it can't be a block.

Not arguing you, just curious what rule clarifies this? It doesn't seem legal to me that someone can lay down in the lane to stop someone from driving. Does the principle of verticality still stay in play? Thanks in advance.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Not arguing you, just curious what rule clarifies this? It doesn't seem legal to me that someone can lay down in the lane to stop someone from driving. Does the principle of verticality still stay in play? Thanks in advance.

Well, I just took the test tonight, and several things in there that I would have sworn were a certain way in the rulebook, weren't. Fortunately, it was an open book test. But I'd swear that wording very similar to what I said is somewhere in the rulebook or the case book, but I can't find it. I'm almost certain I'm right, but then I was equally certain that the R didn't have to actually toss the ball, just designate who would do it. So, right now, I'm not 100% sure. I know for sure that lying down is not legal in college, even if you just fell there, and couldn't get up, and I thought it was the opposite in hs, but I can't find the cite. I'll let you know when I do.

I don't really think there's much way to apply verticality. And I dont think it would be legal to actually purposefully lay down as a way to get in someone's way. It's just that if you fall, you are "entitled to your spot on the floor" and no one is allowed to "play through" you.

[rainmaker]

Okay, well, I'm really not as organized as MTDSr, and I do'nt have all my old books filed in date order and flagged for important items. But in hunting around for this cite, I find that the wording I'm seeking is in case 10.6.1 Sit E in the 2004-05 case book.

"B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control ofthe ball and falls to the floor. Ruling: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he'she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling downs. (7-4-1,2)"

I don't get why the cite is for 7-4-1,2. But there's the wording.

My question is, since that's not in the case book any more, is it still applicable?