Is This Player Control?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From kbilla: "Why can't people on this board just go back and forth with good debate about interpretations without making stupid confrontational comments?"

Amen

Then there would be only two people on the board and that would not be much fun now would it?

Peace

[BillyMac]

From JRutledge: "Then there would be only two people on the board and that would not be much fun now would it? Peace"

JRutledge: I agree. This Forum would not be as much fun and would probably be rather boring, however, I have a few reasons for wanting fewer impolite and confrontational threads and posts.

First, I would like people, not just officials, to act in a polite, civil manner, even when they stongly disagree with each other. I hope and pray that those Forum members who use a lot of impolite and confrontational language, do so because of the anonymity or the internet, and that they would, hopefully, be more polite, and civil, in a face-to-face, "real world" disagreement situation.

Also, I have found that impolite and confrontational language on this Forum often leads to more impolite and more confrontational language, which leads me to my third reason.

I value this Forum as an educational tool to help me improve my officiating. I waste lot of time "cutting through" the impolite and confrontational language on this Forum to get to the reason I visit this site every day, to educate myself and to improve my officiating.

P.S. Have you noticed that this Forum has gotten more polite and civil since Old School stopped posting?

[JRutledge]

Billy,

My post was sarcastic. I was not looking for a larger philosophy on life.

Peace

[Jimgolf]

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact. It seems to me that all the other rules about LGP and charging and screening only help to determine who (in legal terms) was responsible for the contact. So if you are guarding someone, and you have not established LGP, then you are responsible for the contact. Likewise, if you are setting a blind screen, and you do not allow for time and distance, then you are responsible for the contact. In this case we are talking about someone charging into a player not guarding him, so the player charging is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic? I haven't gone through all the foul definitions trying to verify this thought, but I don't recall seeing any situations where this wouldn't apply. Or is this so vague that it's of little use?

I thought it might be a short hand way of explaining fouls to beginning players and their parents.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact. It seems to me that all the other rules about LGP and charging and screening only help to determine who (in legal terms) was responsible for the contact. So if you are guarding someone, and you have not established LGP, then you are responsible for the contact. Likewise, if you are setting a blind screen, and you do not allow for time and distance, then you are responsible for the contact. In this case we are talking about someone charging into a player not guarding him, so the player charging is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic? I haven't gone through all the foul definitions trying to verify this thought, but I don't recall seeing any situations where this wouldn't apply. Or is this so vague that it's of little use?

I thought it might be a short hand way of explaining fouls to beginning players and their parents.

I like your summary for the most part, with the exception of the word excessive. Contact need not be excessive to be a foul. It is more about whether the contact put the opponent at a disadvantage. Many times contact can be subtle and still provide the necessary space for a shot or a rebound. As far as I am concerned LGP is a term which is overrated. A player can have LGP and still commit a foul. A PC foul can be committed against a player who clearly does not have LGP. Verticality is much more of a safe haven. You stand still and hold your arms straight up, and if you foul out, the refs probably did "have your number."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Before I ever read a rulebook, I always thought that a foul was excessive contact, and that the foul would be charged to whoever is responsible for the contact.

Is this too simplistic?

Not only simplistic, but wrong.

Read NFHS rule 4-27, especially Art.2--"Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal offensive or defensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be SEVERE."

A simplistic but correct statement might actually be what the rulebook states in R4-19-1--i.e. a foul involves illegal contact.

[Adam]

I'm late to this one, but here's my two bits'.

1. Having LGP allows a player to move and still draw a foul. This is how we can call a pc foul when the defender is still moving. If a player is in the spot first, I don't care which direction he's facing.

2. There are, however, two instances when a player can be standing still with arms down, draw contact on his/her torso, and still be the one responsible for the contact. Blind screens and defenders with a foot out of bounds.