gps-4

[Hawks Coach]

rainmaker
I agree, and this is one of the unfortunate things about the nature the discussion can take on these boards. I sometimes reply knowing that I have no prayer of changing the mind of the person to whom I am responding, but I know that there are new members every week and I feel that both sides of the discussion need to be represented. (one recent painful thread comes to mind!!) Furthermore, I can see the points made when all of you respond to a particularly stubborn individual (regardless of who that person might be on a given thread) and you make points based on rules, reason, cases, etc.

I think it is a pain to keep doing this at times, but hopefully somebody will continue to make the case-based, rule-based arguments so that people don't show up to learn and learn the wrong things, or just hear one side of the story. Everyone must draw their own conclusions and call their own game, but those who come here to learn the game should see all sides of an issue and be allowed to decide for themselves.

[crew]

[/QUOTE]As for Crew,I'm with Big Tony.How can you discuss something with someone that insists he's 100% right,but can never find a written rule that will back his position?
[/B][/QUOTE]
i never said i was 100% correct on anything.

Philosophies are different at the various levels,but all the different levels do have rules that you should,at least,use as a guideline.

i agree.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I think that we should all stop using the word philosophy when discussing incidental contact. In fact philosophy should not be attached to Oswald Tower's writings on incidental contact. Contrary to popular belief, officials are not supposed to have a philosophy concerning incidental contact. The rules define exactly what is incidental contact. NFHS R4-S27 and NCAA R4-S37 define incidental contact. Both sections are identical definitions; there are five sections in NFHS and six in NCAA (NFHS A4 is divided into NCAA A4 and A5). The important articles for the posted play are A3 (NFHS and NCAA) and A5 (NFHS and A6/NCAA).


NFHS R4-S27: Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

A3: Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

A5 (A6/NCAA): If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.


Lets look at the originally posted play: A1 drives past B1 and becomes an airborne shooter. B2 jumps into the air and blocks A1’s shot while A1 is still airborne. After blocking A1’s shot and while A1 is still airborne (an airborne shooter in this play), B2 makes contact with A1 and A1 lands on the floor (not on his feet).

Before going any farther, the NFHS/NCAA definitions of guarding and screening will also be used in determining the correct ruling for the posted play.

The following questions have to be answered before the ruling can be made:

Question 1: Had B2 secured a legal position on the floor before A1 became an airborne player?

If the answer to Question (1) is yes, then the next question is:

Question 2: Did B2 obtain (NFHS)/establish (NCAA) a legal guarding position against
A1?

If the answer to Question (2) is yes, then any contact between A1 and B2 is either incidental or a foul by A1 against B2.

If the answer to Question (2) is no, then the next question is:

Question 3: Did B2 jump straight up within his own space (principle of verticality)?

If the answer to Question (3) is yes, then any contact between A1 and B2 is either incidental or a foul by A1 against B2.

If the answer to Question (3) is no, then any contact between A1 and B2 is not incidental and is a foul by B2 against A1.

If the answer to Question (1) is no, then any contact between A1 and B2 is not incidental and is a foul by B2 against A1.


As one can see there is nothing difficult about making a ruling for the posted play. If the answer to Question (1) is no, it is because B2 has not fulfilled the requirements of NFHS R4-S27-A5 (NCAA R4-37-A6).


Now lets look at the original posting:

On a fast break situation (1 on 2) (a1 vs b1,b2) a1 drives the ball to the basket, beats b1 and goes for the lay in. At the same time b2 jumps from secondary coverage and blocks the ball and it sails near the center court. After the blocked shot and before the a2 comes to the ground b2 makes body contact with a1 and a1 subsequently goes to the floor.


To be honest, the original posting does not give a definite answer to Question (1), and without an answer (yay or nay) one cannot make a definite ruling on the play from a rules interpreters position. But the question that has been raised through the thread is whether B2 can or cannot legally make contact with A1 while blocking A1’s field goal attempt? And we can see that the question is but yes and no. But the important thing to remember is that the rules tell us what is a foul, not an official’s (or coach’s, player’s, or some other official’s, or conference assigner’s) personal philosophy as to what is incidental contact and what is a foul.

[bigwhistle]

I have had entire games that took less time than it did to read Mark's last post

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
I have had entire games that took less time than it did to read Mark's last post

Big,you just broke me up laughing,just sitting here.Great comment!Btw,I read it too,and I think Mark just agreed with everybody that ever posted on this thread,no matter what tack they took.Is that the impression you got?Must be the holiday spirit.:
Love is in the air...hum..hum..love is in the air-

[Mark Dexter]

While we may not need a "philosophy" on incidental contact, the covering official must put some thought into the call otherwise you have a circular definition:

Incidental contact is contact which is not considered a foul.

A personal foul is contact that is not considered incidental.


See where we're going here?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
I have had entire games that took less time than it did to read Mark's last post

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
While we may not need a "philosophy" on incidental contact, the covering official must put some thought into the call otherwise you have a circular definition:

Incidental contact is contact which is not considered a foul.

A personal foul is contact that is not considered incidental.


See where we're going here?

Mark (isn't that a great name):

I agree with you as far as "thought" goes but the definition of incidental contact coupled with the definition of what is a personal foul does give us a circular definition. Basketball is a non-contact sport, meaning that there is going to be contact that is incidental to the playing of the game, but contact should not be used gain an advantage that the rules do not allow.

Hence your description of a circular definition.

In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

[crew]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agree with you as far as "thought" goes but the definition of incidental contact coupled with the definition of what is a personal foul does give us a circular definition. Basketball is a non-contact sport, meaning that there is going to be contact that is incidental to the playing of the game, but contact should not be used gain an advantage that the rules do not allow.

Hence your description of a circular definition.

In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

there is judgement involved. i agree

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

Actually, in a criminal proceeding, the jury (or judge) decides if the state (or other governing authority) has proven its case, not if the defendent did the crime or not.

In a civil case, the jury (or judge) decides which side has proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

At least, that's what I learned by watching Perry Mason reruns. They've been on every weekday at noon here in Portland for about 30 years.

Of course, on the court, I am judge, jury and executioner and there are no appeals. Like Judge Roy Bean, I am the law.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Mark (isn't that a great name):

I agree with you as far as "thought" goes but the definition of incidental contact coupled with the definition of what is a personal foul does give us a circular definition. Basketball is a non-contact sport, meaning that there is going to be contact that is incidental to the playing of the game, but contact should not be used gain an advantage that the rules do not allow.

Hence your description of a circular definition.

In a court of law the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty (not innocent or innocent). The definition of guilty is not innocent and the definition of innocent is not guilty. A circular definition if I ever saw one.

So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? [/B]

Yes,he is!:

[Mark Dexter]

DeNucci for Congress? He'd be perfect - he doesn't disagree with anyone!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I do not know if circular definition is the best way to describe what what we are saying.

When we flip a coin before the start of a soccer game there are only two outcomes (actually three: I actually had the coin land on its edge this summer before the start of an AAU tournament baseball game): H(eads) or T(ails). When the flipped coin lands H up that means T was down and vice versus. This is no different than the logic we used to describe incidental contact and illegal contact.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
When we flip a coin before the start of a soccer game...

At last... I NOW UNDERSTAND!!!

He is a frigging soccer official. No wonder I am so confused about what he is saying all the time.