Last night, men's rec ball, A1 takes 3-pt shot [ball in air], A2 under basket ready for rebound, pushes B2 nearly out of lane as he is "boxing out", call is A2 for "pushing", ball goes through hoop, call was no basket, ball was dead as soon as A2 fouled. Ball out to B, [not in bonus], did we get it right?

Basket is good. Sorry you missed this one.

No. The push has nothing to do with the ball being in the air/shot. Basket counts and the push is handled like any other foul.

Had this in a rec game last night. Team A jacks up a 3 (I'm trail) and I signal the 3, shot goes in. Same time, hear partner's whistle for a Team B push-off on rebound. Counted the 3 and Team A got the ball back because of the foul. Team B howler monkey was P/O'd about the call, but aren't they always?

This is a call you can, and should in my book, pass on. N advantage gained since shot went in (no rebound to gain advantage for). If shot is missed, TWEEEET, for same reason - advantage gained on rebound.

That's why my fellow howler was so peeved (as if we really need a reason ;) ). Once the whistle was blown by your partner, call had to be made. But whistle can (should) be held until you see if shot is going to go. I am sure that others on this board will be glad to share a different opinion. But just ask yourself how many times you see this call in a college game, and you'll know how the top refs call this one. No advantage, no call - incidental contact, play on.

This is a call you can, and should in my book, pass on. No advantage gained since shot went in (no rebound to gain advantage for). If shot is missed, TWEEEET, for same reason - advantage gained on rebound.

That's why my fellow howler was so peeved (as if we really need a reason ;) ). Once the whistle was blown by your partner, call had to be made. But whistle can (should) be held until you see if shot is going to go. I am sure that others on this board will be glad to share a different opinion. But just ask yourself how many times you see this call in a college game, and you'll know how the top refs call this one. No advantage, no call - incidental contact, play on.

A foul is a foul coach. If there's enough contact to call a foul, it doesn't matter whether the ball goes in or not.

Thank you BktBallRef, you saved me from having to give my $50 lecture on incidental contact.

Of course it matters if the ball goes in or not! A foul is only a foul if the contact causes an illegal disadvantage or advantage. In this sitch there is no advantage, so unless the foul is unsportsmanlike (Flagrent) then there should be no whistle.

Oz, BktBallRef is correct. The foul occured during the field goal attempt. Basketball is not like soccer where the Referee can wait to see if the foul affects the play. At the time that A2 pushed B2, there is no way to tell if the field goal attempt will be successful or not. If the field goal attempt was unsuccessful B2 may have gotten the rebound. This foul has to be called.

Mark,

I realise that basketball is not like soccer (real football!).

My point is that, if possible, the referee should hold the whistle, and if the basket is good, this foul soesn't need to be called. Obviously it depends on the circumstances. If the shooting guard jacks up a 40 footer, and as soon as he releases the rebounder clears out - it has to be called. However, if the centre attempts a shot from 5 feet, then the should be enough time to wait and see if the basket is good.

The same concept applies to slight contact on a ball handler - hold the whistle, if they don't lose control - no call, if they are impeaded at all, blow the foul. I find this especially true for players trying to strip the ball from behind. Often I find that the defender puts themselves at a disadvantage, giving the offence a clean path to the basket - only for the referee to call incidental contact and a fast break opportunity ruined.

Duane, this play is a no brainer. Foul on A2; there is nothing in the rule book (NFHS, NCAA, or FIBA) that can an official can use to defend not calling a foul on A2.

That's why so many successful referees make a habit of calling this??

I am not saying you cannot defend this call because pushing is clearly defined in the book. But this happens all the time and is not called ever - haven't seen it in HS varsity games, let alone college or pro. There is a reason, and it is advantage/disadvantage. Contact that results in an advantage gets called. No rebound, no advantage, no call.

I think we all would call this the same, but we are using different terminology; what some of you see as advantage/disadvantage, others see as incidental contact.

Exactly. But I would say it slightly differently. Because of the advantage/disadvantage concept, this type of contact should be considered incidental, unless it is so flagrant you believe you need to call it. And in that case, I would expect you to have either a T or an intentional. Otherwise, let it go, and either give a quiet verbal warning to all post players or call it tight on the next real rebounding situation if the play inside is getting a little rough.

This is simply a matter of holding your whistle for a half a second to see if the ball rebounds off the rim. Not a big deal.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dblref

Quote:

Team A jacks up a 3 (I'm trail) and I signal the 3, shot goes in. Same time, hear partner's whistle for a Team B push-off on rebound. Counted the 3 and Team A got the ball back because of the foul. Team B howler monkey was P/O'd about the call, but aren't they always?

Must be infectious... Same thing happened to me last night (Boys JV game)! :D

As for consideration of advantage/disadvantage, these two teams (rivals) were banging from the tip-off. My partner and I stressed sportsmanship in the pre-game conference, whistled the first contact, we both gave "unheeded" verbal warnings early in the first quarter. We halted the game and gathered the captians and coaches and reminded them that they needed to get their teams under control or we would be forced to continue the whistles.

Needless to say, we were forced to continue whistling. We ended up in the bonus for both teams in the 1st and 3rd quarters and double bonus early in the 2nd and 4th quarters. Both teams had deep benches and used them freely.


The players (both sides) seemed to be affected by murphy's law or some strange force, if they saw an opportunity to foul they would chose it. Most of it was petty stuff: "contact on a reach", extending a hip/elbow on a pick, PUSHING while attempting to "steal" a rebound from behind (Over the back, for the howler monkeys ;)), etc....
51 fouls later, the final horn rang. Home - 42 Visitors - 79.

It was ugly.



[Edited by williebfree on Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:00 AM]

I agree.

Basketball is NOT soccer, there is NO advantage clause in basketball like there is in soccer. Let me repeat myself: Basketball is NOT soccer, there is NO advantage clause in basketball like there is in soccer.

It is utter nonsense to wait and see if the field goal attempt is not successful to call a foul. This is not a case of advantage/disadvantage. This is covered in NFHS R4-S27 and NCAA R4-S37, incidental contact. A2's contact is not incidental contact.

How did the push "hinder B2 (or whoever it was in the orignial) from participating in normal defensive movements?"

If the shot was good, and the foul was "minor-enough" to not influence subsequent rebounding attempts, then the only movement B2 has is to either inbound the ball or run down the court for the offensive set.

I understand what is being said about advantage/disadvantage but I think some of you are expanding that concept a little too much. I look at it regardless of what is going on with the ball if the contact away from the ball is bad enough to warrant a foul then it should be called whether the ball goes in or not. Basically I see it as A2 is gaining an advantage over B2 because they are getting position illegally. I am tempted to think that going with the definition being used in this case to justify not calling a foul because of advantage/disadvantage you could also say that if the ball does miss yet it comes off of the rim to the opposite direction of where A2 is then there is no advantage gained, and I personally think that would be called as well.

Mark, the very definition of what constitutes a foul permits a referee to not call this.

From the FIBA rulebook, Article 43.1.2

"In determining whether or not to penalise such contact, the officials shall in each instance regard and weigh up the following fundamental principles:

Consistency in applying the concept of 'advantage/disadvantage', whereby the officials should not seek to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily, in order to penalise personal contact that is incidental and which <b>does not give the player responsible an advantage nor place his opponent at a disadvantage</b>." [Empahsis added]


If the opponent has no possibilty of rebounding the ball (bcause the basket is made) how are they being put at a disadvantage?

I have been told by several varisty officials in my chapter that wether you call this depends on the level of play. That stumped my for a moment, but they explained that at the lower levels it was more important for the players to learn what was and was not "legal". Therefore, if you are calling JH or Frosh ball you would whistle this foul.

However, if you have any desire to move up to varsity from JV (which you are "rewarded" with based on test scores, mechanics, etc.) you need to hold the whistle for a second or two and see if the play was impacted. They compared it to the 3 sec. violation. If a player wants to take himself out of his teams play, let him. If the ball is passed to him while he is in the lane, then you blow your whistle.

Therefore, in this case I would hold have nothing if it was JV or varsity and a foul if it was a lower skill level.

Your second situation (ball rebounds away) differs from the first. I would say if the shot doesn't fall, an advantage may have been gained and it is up to you to make that determination. You wouldn't be wrong to whistle it. Suppose it is A2 pushing B2 and A3 gets the rebound. Now B3 may be forced into defending A2 and A3 because A2 is out of position. That is an advantage for A through illegal contact - call the foul. If there is a rebound, call what you must to keep the game good.

But if there is no rebound, I cannot agree with your conclusion that A now has some sort of advantage through A2's push, or B through B2's push - whichever team committed the push, no advantage. They had a potential advantage until the shot went in, at that point, no advantage. B is inbounding on the baseline, push or no push, and the push during the shot has no impact on that play.

One thing that is a fundamental precept of refereeing in all sports is call only what you need to call. The game is so much better that way.

For all of those arguing that you don't call this, consider this. A1 shoots the ball and while it is in the air, A2 moves down the lane and blasts into B1 knocking him out of the way. Ball goes in. What I've been reading people are saying not to call this. If the contact is severe enough to displace B1 then it has got to be called. B1 is entitled to his position on the floor if he/she was there first. It doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. At the time of the contact, that issue hasn't been decided. What has been decided is that A2 displaced B1 illegally. If you don't call this, you are headed right toward a potential rough play scenario (B1 pushing back, etc.). I will agree that if two players are simply legally jostling hard for rebounding position, then you can hold the whistle. If someone gets displaced illegally, you gotta have a whistle.

Hawks Coach,
I agree with your last statement that I should call only what needs to be called to keep the flow of the game. However, I guess I am thinking that if I am going to call a foul in this situation it is going to be severe enough contact that whatever happens with the ball it should be called. Personally I think that some minor pushing going for rebounding position is OK, but when the contact is severe enough I am going to call it no matter what.

I guess we may just be misunderstanding what each considers a foul in this situation.

Jerry, walter
I agree that really flagrant contact should be called - but then it is something beyond a push to obtain position for rebounding. And you could make an intentional (or, in the EXTREME, flagrant) foul call if you felt it was warranted. But this is a "you have to see it to call it" situation. If you can get away with warning them when no rebound is involved, and make it clear that you will not tolerate rough play, it will either stop or you will soon have a missed shot on which to call a foul - and you can call one on every rebound if it doesn't stop! If it stops, then your warning sufficed and the game was not negatively impacted in any way.

That is my point. Call it when you need to. And the standard should be different if the shot goes in then if it is missed. It doesn't mean you never call anything on a missed shot, but I would hope it would be something you felt you absolutely could not let go, which is a different standard than just saying someone may have gained an advantage for a rebound.

There is disadvantage!!!
 

If I shove a player that is at the top of the key, out of bounds regardless of where the ball is, it is a foul. Because if that player gets up and decks the player that fouled him, you will not take the same idea I guarantee that.

All the time coaches are trying to tell us that "this" happen first and you should not call a foul on "my" guy because "the other guy" pushed him first.

Rough play has nothing to do with the game and should be called every time.

I am a huge advocate of advantage/disadvantage principles, but knocking a guy down and waiting to see whether the shot went in or not has nothing to do with that principle.

Peace

Rut,

I agree that knocking a player down must always be called, however, in this case I believe that the sitch refered to more of a boxing out/physical play under the hoop. Obviously any call must be made according to the situation, I was simply trying to suggest that this is not automatically a foul that should be called.

I have always thought that the main difference between a good referee and a great referee is not in what they call, but in what they chose not to call.

To be clear, a slight push off to get position on a rebound is very common and not the same as a major shove. I would call the big time shove anywhere as well. The initial description of this play did not indicate any severity to the action - sounded like your run of the mill jostling under the boards with a pushing foul called on the defensive player simultaneous with a made shot.

Most times, this does not need to be called. And jrut, having read your philosophy on many subjects related to higher level ball and based on your high level playing experience, I bet you don't call the run of the mill defensive rebounding pushoff on a made shot. You pass on it like 99.9% of varsity refs. And most games do not feature a whole bunch of violent shoves that demand to be called. When they happen, call 'em. That's not the play I am discussing.

I still take issue.
 

Coach, you are correct on one thing, I am not calling the run of the mill push. But I do not care if the ball goes in or does not go in either. I will blow my whistle before the ball even has an ultimate chance. The result of the play is not going to be a factor in an off-ball situation necessarily. If that action completely unneccessary and is not basketball related.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?";):confused:

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

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).

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

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.

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).

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.

Dan
You have too broad a definition of contact sport. If my definition of a contact sport is one in which you are allowed to grab someone and throw them to the ground, wrestling and football qualify, boxing and hockey do not. And you just have to live with it - in fact, I think I have just decided that boxing and hockey are non-contact. I'm still thinking about NASCAR.