just checking

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Let me put this another way: Every year there is a point of emphasis about rough play, especially in the lane. Why? Sir Issac Newton said in his Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Basketball Corollary to the Third Law of Motion states: That for every illegal push, which goes uncharged and penalized, the reactive push will be twice as hard.

People keep telling me that knowledge of mathematics and science is not important, but once again my education in sturctural engineering and engineering mechanics saves the day. Thank you, thank you. Just send money.

But getting back to the point at hand. Basketball is a non-contact sport, I did not say that all contact during a basketball game is not legal. It means that players are not to make contact with an opponent to gain an advantage. In the originally posted play, A2 pushed B2 in an effort to gain an advantage over B2 which is not allowed by the rules. Once again, remember basketball is not soccer, there is no advantage clause. Call the foul. Call it early and call it every time it happens. The coaches and players will soon realize that this kind of play will not be allowed and they will stop. If more officials took this approach we would not be having this discussion in the first place because players would now that it is illegal, and we would not have an annual point of emphasis about rough play.

[Hawks Coach]

I have watched varsity Bball in DC, MD, IL, and MI, and spoke with a varsity ref in PA this weekend on this specific issue and some other topics that were hot items on this board. Guess what - they all have the same thing in common. You never see the run of the mill push off called on a defensive rebounder on a made shot. And the PA ref said that's how his assignors wanted it. Don't know about Ohio or NC - never watched ball there. But those who are at the HS varsity level and above never make this call - those below do. Seems those POEs don't resonate with evaluators and assignors the same way they do with you.

And Mark, you are playing with semantics. You say that there is no advantage rule, but your ruling cites the attempt to gain an advantage as your criteria for this being a foul. I am saying that at the high levels, they look not only at the attempt to gain an advantage, but the advantage gained.

If you disagree with this, fine. But then you should easily be able to cite 10 college games this year where defensive rebounding pushes by B on a made shot by A have resulted in common fouls, ball inbounded by A under the basket. It is completely illogical to assume that rebounding contact is different on made shots than missed shots, if you are familiar with statistical principles. In reality, there should be an equal ratio of pre-rebound bumps and pushes on made as on missed shots. But while pre-rebound pushes are called in most college games I see, they are only called on missed shots. That ought to mean something to that scientific brain of yours - it's either an amazing statistical anomaly or some kind of pattern that indicates how every D1 ref calls the game.

And again, Mark, I am not talking about excessively rough play, bringing into play your rules of physics. Varsity HS rebounding features a lot of bumping and pushing, some called, some not. If you think that the only way to control the normal physical play of basketball is through use of your whistle, then I am sorry to hear that you suffer from such severe limitations. There are ways to manage a game without use of the whistle and calling fouls. If it is a one time incident, your physics laws are irrelveant. If you start having the equal and opposite reactions, then decide what the appropriate step should be to control it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

If a high school assigner told me not to call a foul when a foul should be called, I would tell him that he and I were going to have a long talk with our State Interpreter. An assigner has no business telling officials to officiate the game in a manner that is not in accordance with the rules.

[Hawks Coach]

And I am willing to bet that most state interpreters will say there are times to hold the whistle and times to use it, judging from what I see called. And if the assigner and the interpreter disagree, call your interpreter to get some varsity games on your schedule when the only no-calls being made are from the varsity assigner to your house!

[Dan_ref]

Interesting that in tonight's game B1 shoved A1 under the
basket while a 3 point try from A2 was in flight. The ball
goes in. As we're going down court (I'm now T) A1 says
"hey ref, watch #33, he's pushing on the shot." I told him
I saw it, he smiled and said thanks.

[walter]

A push (i.e. regular run of the mill rebounding jostling) is one thing. The displacement of a player that has established a legal position on the floor has the right to maintain that position. If an opponent is simply jostling with that player without using elbows, etc. play on. This is my look whether the ball goes in or not. If a player displaces another player with enough force that the contact can't be ingnored, I don't care whether the ball goes in or not, I'm blowing the whistle. This is in my college games as well as my HS games. This is a point that my partners and I discuss every pre-game. If the contact makes someone slightly lose their balance or take a step away, I'd probably let that go and tell the players involved to watch it when I had the opportunity. If however someone just shoves someone away, that's a foul. Basketball involves some physicality. It is our job to decide when that physicality crosses the legal/illegal line. Physical play in the post and on rebounding situations is never going away. Illegal contact should never be ignored regardless of what is going on with the ball.

[DrakeM]

I find it ironic that Hawks Coach and BkblRef have their roles reversed here.
Isn't it usually the Coach who says "a foul is a foul?"

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by DrakeM
I find it ironic that Hawks Coach and BkblRef have their roles reversed here.
Isn't it usually the Coach who says "a foul is a foul?"

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Bart Tyson]

Mark, I know what you are saying, however i would never use the pharse basketball is a "non-contact sport". In fact basketball is a contact sport. And has been defind as such. I've had coaches say to me "there was contact". My reply has been yes there was contact but not a foul. I have had two coaches push it a little more about my say there was contact but no foul. And i calmly told them basketball is a contact sport. No more was said and the games went well. I believe you do a disservice to everyone when you say bb is a non-contact sport. Most people will take that to extreme.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Mark, I know what you are saying, however i would never use the pharse basketball is a "non-contact sport". In fact basketball is a contact sport. And has been defind as such. I've had coaches say to me "there was contact". My reply has been yes there was contact but not a foul. I have had two coaches push it a little more about my say there was contact but no foul. And i calmly told them basketball is a contact sport. No more was said and the games went well. I believe you do a disservice to everyone when you say bb is a non-contact sport. Most people will take that to extreme.

Please reread what I said about contact. I did not say that all contact was illegal. I said that there is incidental contact during the game. My definition of non-contact is: When A1 is in an unfavorable postion compared to B1's position, and contact results, A1 is responsible for the contact.

Football is a contact sport. In football A1 and hit (within the confines of the rules) B1, and that contact is legal. Soccer is a contact sport (look at the definition of a fair charge).

[Bart Tyson]

I understand, I just don't like the pharse itself. imagine that.

[Hawks Coach]

Mark
I understand your easoning, for the first time I might add, with the addition of the soccer shoulder charge (which is clearly illegal in basketball). So clearly, basketball is different than the traditional contact sports in that contact which displaces a player may not be utilized to gain an advantage. However, a player in basketball with an advantageous position can use legal contact to maintain that position.

I guess the only problem that most of us have with calling the sport non-contact as a result of your reasonable distinction is that contact remains an integral part of the game. Non-contact makes you think of the old girls game, which had many more restrictions on contact. Now, basketball has contact on every trip down the court, so it seems odd to call it non-contact.

All contact sports have restrictions on what contact is allowed, and what contact is not. Basketball is more restrictive than soccer, and soccer more so than American or Australian football and rugby. But they all remain contact sports, because contact is allowed an expected in all contests, with specific rules governing what type of cantact shall be permitted.

[BigJoe]

I think that most of you are missing the boat on this subject. No one has mentioned the fact that the lead official who calls the foul for pushing on the rebound shouldn't be watching the shot in the first place much less watch the ball in flight and see if it goes through the basket. If you are doing all of that who is watching the rebounding action and post play. I see too many officials with "four eyes" on the ball and off ball coverage is forgotten or made by a glance here and there. If my partner ever made the argument of waiting to see if the basket was made before calling a foul on rebounding position, I doubt that I would work with him in the near future. Another point is consistancy in your calls. How can you justify calling the same play on one end a foul just because the basket wasn't made and on the other end let it go because of a made basket? I welcome any comments on my observations and thanks for the opportunity to make my point.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by BigJoe
I think that most of you are missing the boat on this subject. No one has mentioned the fact that the lead official who calls the foul for pushing on the rebound shouldn't be watching the shot in the first place much less watch the ball in flight and see if it goes through the basket. If you are doing all of that who is watching the rebounding action and post play. I see too many officials with "four eyes" on the ball and off ball coverage is forgotten or made by a glance here and there. If my partner ever made the argument of waiting to see if the basket was made before calling a foul on rebounding position, I doubt that I would work with him in the near future. Another point is consistancy in your calls. How can you justify calling the same play on one end a foul just because the basket wasn't made and on the other end let it go because of a made basket? I welcome any comments on my observations and thanks for the opportunity to make my point.

All oficials should be aware of the ball and it's status at all times. It's no different than a three-second call. You wouldn't want to whistle three-seconds while the ball was in the air or a shot was imminent.

As for the consistency: Play 1: A1 and B1 are running down the court when B1 bumps into A1. A1 is thrown off stride, but recovers and continues. Ruling: No call (I hope!)

Play 2: Dribbler A1 and B1 are moving down the court when B1 bumps into A1. A1 is thrown off stride, but recovers and continues: Ruling: Foul on B1.

Play 3: A1 and B1 are running down the court when B1 bumps into A1. A1 falls down. Ruling: Foul on B1.

Play 4: A1 and B1 are running down the court when B1 bumps into A1. A1 is thrown off stride and recovers, but can't reach a pass that was thrown to A1. Ruling: Foul on B1.

In the rebounding play: If the action is more like play 1, and a made basket, then I have no call. If the action is more like play 4 (which is the same action as play 1), but a missed basket, then I have a foul. IF the action is more like play 3, then I have a foul whether the basket was made(and I don't mean to imply that someone must hit the floor first).

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


Please reread what I said about contact. I did not say that all contact was illegal. I said that there is incidental contact during the game. My definition of non-contact is: When A1 is in an unfavorable postion compared to B1's position, and contact results, A1 is responsible for the contact.

Football is a contact sport. In football A1 and hit (within the confines of the rules) B1, and that contact is legal. Soccer is a contact sport (look at the definition of a fair charge).

So how does this view allow for contact on a legal screen
in basketball. Potentially a lot of contact there, B1
often has an unfavorable position before the contact and
the purpose is to leave B1 at a disadvantage after the
contact. Using your definition basketball is a contact
sport.