Foul on Shooter then PC

[Raymond]

JRut is right on this one. In the real world you are only going to have one foul, the one on B1.

[Ron Giacoma]

I have seen this situation many times and I do not understand why we do not change the Rules books to basically make it SIMPLE and consistant....... One veteran calls it one way and has his/her reasonings. Another says something 180 dergees different. Lets come together and united. Afterall, this is not politics. This is a call we make for adolescence. We should all agree or have a book that tells us how to agree with each other so the teenagers aren't so confused. Then we all move forward with the same message/rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

JRut is right on this one. In the real world you are only going to have one foul, the one on B1.

Interesting.

If B1 reaches in and just gets A1 on the shooting elbow on the way up and doesn't change A1's path in any way, and A1 then charges into B2 who had LGP all the way and knocks B2 into the second row, you're not going to call the charge?

Juggling Referee said in his original post that you shouldn't call a PC if B1's foul changed A1's path so that he charges into B2, but then he talked about the play above....where the foul by B1 didn't affect A1's original path in any way.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ron Giacoma

I have seen this situation many times and I do not understand why we do not change the Rules books to basically make it SIMPLE and consistant....... One veteran calls it one way and has his/her reasonings. Another says something 180 dergees different. Lets come together and united. Afterall, this is not politics. This is a call we make for adolescence. We should all agree or have a book that tells us how to agree with each other so the teenagers aren't so confused. Then we all move forward with the same message/rule.

The reason the rule was implemented was to cover the situation where 2 different officials saw the play differently. If they both insist that they were right, what do you do now if neither wants to change their call?

On the floor, it's not a matter of who is right. It's a matter of who thinks they are right. If both do......

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If B1 reaches in and just gets A1 on the shooting elbow on the way up and doesn't change A1's path in any way, and A1 then charges into B2 who had LGP all the way and knocks B2 into the second row, you're not going to call the charge?

Are you sure you'll be going to call B1's foul in this case? Won't it be a contact which has no real influence on the play? In the case you are talking about, the charge is unavoidable, isn't it?

I'm not saying an official mustn't call it, but just that it's important to think about calling it.

Ciao

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

1) Are you sure you'll be going to call B1's foul in this case? Won't it be a contact which has no real influence on the play?

2) In the case you are talking about, the charge is unavoidable, isn't it?

1) B1 fouled the shooter. How do you ever know that the contact had no real influence on the play? And if a player puts a shooter into the third row, does that still have no real influence on the play if the shooter makes the basket? You can also foul an airborne shooter and never move them from their path. You can hit a wrist or elbow and knock the ball loose or make the shooter miss the shot, and that won't cause the airborne shooter to come down in any different spot than the one he was originally going to come down in. And there was already a defender with LGP in that spot?

2) Yes. And the defender was there before the shooter left his feet and never moved. And the defender with legal guarding position then gets knocked down and put into the third row by the charge.

Juggling Referee originally said that there shouldn't be a foul called on a shooter who was knocked off balance or into a defender. I agree with that fully. So did you and JRut. Juggler was talking about two different situations though. This situation refers to the play where the airborne shooter is definitely fouled but his path isn't changed one bet. He said that he wouldn't call a foul in the first situation, but he would in this situation. I'm just wondering if you and Jeff are still arguing about the first situation instead of the second.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) B1 fouled the shooter. How do you ever know that the contact had no real influence on the play? And if a player puts a shooter into the third row, does that still have no real influence on the play if the shooter makes the basket? You can also foul an airborne shooter and never move them from their path. You can hit a wrist or elbow and knock the ball loose or make the shooter miss the shot, and that won't cause the airborne shooter to come down in any different spot than the one he was originally going to come down in. And there was already a defender with LGP in that spot?

2) Yes. And the defender was there before the shooter left his feet and never moved. And the defender with legal guarding position then gets knocked down and put into the third row by the charge.

Juggling Referee originally said that there shouldn't be a foul called on a shooter who was knocked off balance or into a defender. I agree with that fully. So did you and JRut. Juggler was talking about two different situations though. This situation refers to the play where the airborne shooter is definitely fouled but his path isn't changed one bet. He said that he wouldn't call a foul in the first situation, but he would in this situation. I'm just wondering if you and Jeff are still arguing about the first situation instead of the second.

Situation: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting by B1 and makes contact with B2 who was in LGP.

It seems that we agree that, if the shooter is set off balance by the foul, then the second contact should be ignored.

Now let's concentrate on the dubious case: the foul by B1 doesn't change in a sensible way A1's path and doesn't put A1 off balance.

I say that we should think before calling B1's foul and the charge by A1. I would be much more inclined to call only the charge and wave off the basket. Assuming, of course that the contact between A1 and B2 is substantial (for example, but not only, when B2 is knocked down). Such a situation seems more likely when the two contacts are almost simultaneous: in case of doubt on which happens first, I'd rather go with the charge.

I'm not saying we should ignore B1's contact in every situation like this, nor I'm saying to ignore contact on a shooter who is able to score anyway. I'm saying we must be careful and call the foul (and I admit that at the end, in very special situations, it can be "the fouls").

It should definitely not be "different calls by two officials", do you agree?

Ciao

[sharkref]

Call the foul on the shooter.............ignore any foul after this unless it is intentional or flagrant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Now let's concentrate on the dubious case: the foul by B1 doesn't change in a sensible way A1's path and doesn't put A1 off balance.

1) I say that we should think before calling B1's foul and the charge by A1. I would be much more inclined to call only the charge and wave off the basket.

2) I'm not saying we should ignore B1's contact in every situation like this, nor I'm saying to ignore contact on a shooter who is able to score anyway. I'm saying we must be careful and call the foul (and I admit that at the end, in very special situations, it can be "the fouls").

1) So.....if B1 hit the shooter across the wrists on the way up, and knocked the ball loose, you'd be inclined to completely ignore that? Remember, the basket didn't go in because of the foul.

2) And neither was Juggling Referee saying to ignore the contact either. He said verbatim--"If A1 is pushed into B1, DON'T call the foul, but if there's a hack on the arm while A1 is going up and A1 charges right into B1, you should call it." Didn't you just basically kind of agree with him on both different situations?

That was my point. You've got two completely different situations being discussed here. One situation where the defensive foul pushes or directs the shooter into another defender, and another situation where the defensive foul doesn't alter the path of the airborne shooter at all before the shooter wipes out a different defender. The defensive foul in the second situation may cause the shot to miss though, or it might even stop the shot from getting off. Juggling Referee stated that they should be called different ways.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sharkref

Call the foul on the shooter.............ignore any foul after this unless it is intentional or flagrant.

What does intentional or flagrant really have to do with it if the ball is still live?

Am I reading you right? You're saying that the airborne shooter can run over a defender with LGP? Knock the defender down and put them into the third row? Under all circumstances? And you'd ignore that?

If so, I disagree.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) So.....if B1 hit the shooter across the wrists on the way up, and knocked the ball loose, you'd be inclined to completely ignore that? Remember, the basket didn't go in because of the foul.

You'd wave off the basket anyway, wouldn't you? Unless the ball leaves the shooter's hands before the charge, a rare case in situations which are in turn not very common. I believe there is no way B1 can foul A1, in such a way that A1 is not able to shoot, without setting A1 off balance.

2) And neither was Juggling Referee saying to ignore the contact either. He said verbatim--"If A1 is pushed into B1, DON'T call the foul, but if there's a hack on the arm while A1 is going up and A1 charges right into B1, you should call it." Didn't you just basically kind of agree with him on both different situations?

I hope to have made clear my opinion.

Again, I'm not saying to ignore a foul: just call the real foul, be it on A1 or B1. Or on both, if there is no other choice.

Ciao

[sharkref]

No, if he or she was knocked into the third row, then that would fall under flagrant and should be called but if A1 is fouled on the way up and the other contact is strictly momentum, I would only call the shooting foul. I respect any other opion and I would also say calling a false double foul would not be wrong either.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The reason the rule was implemented was to cover the situation where 2 different officials saw the play differently. If they both insist that they were right, what do you do now if neither wants to change their call?

On the floor, it's not a matter of who is right. It's a matter of who thinks they are right. If both do......

I guess I could see this if two officials signaled like a "blarge" situation that might be the thing to do. But this is why you hold your whistle and you let the primary official take the call or whoever the play is discussed in your pre-game. I do not see why we are so insistent on saying "if two officials see different things." Do we not have double whistles all the time and take only one of the calls? If this is not the case, then why does this not happen often? There is a reason we only pick one foul because if we did not, then the bridges would be falling if we called what is basically a false double foul on more than one occasion.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

no one will understand and they will complain you got it wrong even when you got it right.

How is this different from any call we make?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I could see this if two officials signaled like a "blarge" situation that might be the thing to do. But this is why you hold your whistle and you let the primary official take the call or whoever the play is discussed in your pre-game. I do not see why we are so insistent on saying "if two officials see different things." Do we not have double whistles all the time and take only one of the calls? If this is not the case, then why does this not happen often? There is a reason we only pick one foul because if we did not, then the bridges would be falling if we called what is basically a false double foul on more than one occasion.

We basically agree, and I don't think that Juggling Referee's philosophy is really that much different either. I just didn't think that, either way, you could really make a blanket statement using "always" or "never".

It doesn't happen often, as you said. But I can see a very specific situation where the false double foul might be the right call.