B1 blocks the shot with ball only contact. The ball makes contact with the head of A1 the shooter while the hand of B1 is still in contact with the ball. The resulting impact sends A1 to the floor. B1 never is in contact with anything other than the ball.

no foul.

There is no foul or violation here. Play on.
Z

If B1 was Shaq swinging hard downward, and A1 was J.J. from Good Times (a beanpole), then conceivably the hit by B1 could be so forceful that it knocks A1 down. In that rare instance, I have a foul on B1.

[I meant foul on B1]

<b>[I also wouldn't call this a foul unless the contact was excessive, i.e., an intentional personal foul, OR flagrant]</b>

[Edited by Slider on Feb 4th, 2002 at 04:07 PM]

It has only happened once that the player went to the floor. More than a few have been hurt as a result of this type of play. I do not care if the fans and coaches think I am an idiot as long I know am right.

if he hit all ball, i still wouldnt.

When does the try for goal and subsequent block stop and loose ball play start?

A blocked shot back in the face is not a foul but if b1 then controls the ball and and gains an advantage by using the ball to push a1...

Rule reference please.

this is a judgement play that Tharbert is referring to.

Exactly. You have to judge whether a rule has been broken or not. Which rule? Which rule allows a foul to be called without contact by a player?

Many Technical fouls are non-contact :)

But, seriously, if I push you away using the ball, so that I can get off a shot, wouldn't that be a player control foul?

Does contact have to be skin on skin?

I don't see how.

It has to be player to player.

I don't know what you mean by player to player.

To me, player to player would include pushing another player away using the ball.

It's really not a difficult concept, I don't think. For one player to foul another player, the player's body illegally contacts an opponent's body.

Then if I play defense and displace an airborne shooter by pushing on his jersey (while he is properly wearing it); there is no foul, correct?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 4th, 2002 at 11:52 PM]

Oh Horatio....
 

To foul, or not to foul, that is the question. The hand is part of the ball , but is the ball part of the hand? Can you "punch" someone using the ball?

I've read some stupid posts in my life but that may the stupidest reply I've ever read.

Actually, I can come up with much stupider stuff than that :)

Based on your reply, I'm guessing that you would have a foul on my push (you rarely answer me directly).

Anyway, I was making a point:

If a body is the immediate motive force behind the actions of an object (like apparel, the ball, ect.); then the motive force, i.e., the player, is responsible for illegal contact when extending his reach thru the object.

if am am a1 and you are b1 and take the ball and press it into your face to create space for a shot this would be a foul, would it not.
or if i take the ball and bop you on top of your head while you are in a low stance for guarding purposes this would also be a foul.
it is not an extremely difficult concept that tharbert is addressing.
as to the original play that fisherj asked i would not call a foul.

Is it a foul
 

According to the initial question, the way I see it the ball was pushed back onto the head of the shooter. This would require the hand of the defender to be directly on the top of the ball from the initial block of the ball downt to his head. This would constitute an immediate jump ball call. This is a call that officials have to be aware of and make an immediate call. I've seen this call missed several times and a travel has resulted. So in my humble opinion an immediate whistle for a jump would have prevented the continued play into the players head.

If you take the ball and intentionally pressed it to an opponent's face or you intentioanlly "bop" an opponent on the head with the ball, I'm probably going to have a T for unsporting conduct. Stick a ball in an opponent's chest to make space and that opponent is going to grab the ball, held ball.

But I do not have a personal foul. A personal foul requires illegal contact between 2 opponents, not between an opponent and the ball.

In the original play, we agree. I do not have a foul.

Re: Oh Horatio....
 

Perhaps, "Fair is foul, foul is fair?"

No, wait - that's for the baseball board :).

I can hardly wait! :D

Yes, I would have a foul. You're not using the jersey to push me. You're using your hand. The foul doesn't have to be "skin to skin" as you stated earlier. If you stick the ball in my chest, I'm simply going to grab it.

No, I do answer you directly. But you don't usually agree with me, so you pretend to not understand what I'm saying. :(

I guess we'll just have to disagree, unless you can't present a rule or case play.

If someone plays great position defense; they do everything right in the official's eyes; you want to punish that player when they jump vertically, arms vertical, by letting a shooter push them away with the ball in order to get off a shot.

I can't give you a definitive example in a Case; nor can you give me a Case that excludes non-body contact from being called a contact foul. If ruling non-body contact as a foul isn't disallowed, then I believe calling it as a personal foul is allowed.

OOOOOH! I tend to agree with you Slider. If a player is intentionally pushing a player it doesn't matter if he is using his hand or the ball. If he uses illegal contact to dislodge an opponent such that he takes an advantage--foul. I saw something one time where B1 on defense came charging into the paint and ran into B2 and forced him into the shooter, A1. I don't know if I was right or not but I called the foul on B1 even though the contact was made by B2. There was much traffic in the paint and possibly for that reason, there were no complaints about the call.

But, about the original question, where the blocked shot was all ball, no foul. If the player that blocked the shot was so very aggressive and if you are sure that he intentionally tried to stuff it down the shooter's throat, an intentional technical could be called for unsportsmanlike conduct but it would have to be done on only the rarest of occasions. I've sure never seen it done.

I just thought of something else. Envision a situation where you have a huge Dick Butkus size player on one team who receives a pass on offense under his basket. He has hands like a steel vice and he is being defended by a skinny kid much taller than he is. So he takes the ball in both hands and pushes very forcibly into the chest of the skinny defender and shoves him back 2 feet and then shoots the easy jumper. The only thing that ever touched the defender was the ball. I got player control every time.

A1 drives to the basket and picks up the dribble, looses control of the ball prior to impacting and dislodging legally positioned B1, all contact on B1 was ball and A1 did not have either hand on the ball. The ball transfered the impact between the bodies of the players. Had A1 been in control it is a charge all the way. What do I have.

I don't know what you have but I have a headache.

Anyway (I'm regretting this already) I find it almost
impossible to believe that out of control A1 could dislodge
B1 without there being *some* kind of body contact.
Depending on what you mean by "looses control of the ball"
I have a non-PC charge or a PC on A1. Or maybe a no call.
Anyone going to just go for the travel and be done with it?

This would either be an intentional or a T in my book, every time. It's "excessive contact" or it's "unsporting". It would depend on how the game and this player's attitude had gone thus far.

This isn't "great position defense." Great defense would be grabbing the ball as the shooter is handing it to you, thus getting a jump or even a steal.

This thread is getting pretty silly, but I gotta agree with Mick...by definition, a personal foul involves illegal contact...shoving the ball in someone's face is a non-contact situation, so it's gotta be a T, not a PC...the original situation is nothing - play on...just don't let the kid who blocked the shot taunt the one who just ate the ball...

We all call pushing fouls throughout almost every game. Sometimes it's from the rear going after a rebound. A trip from behind on a fast break is a "push." Many are intentional and either soft or excessive... My point is pushing is part of the game and so is our interpretations of the contact we see.

It's not a T "every time!" Consider the amount of banging post players commit and at what point you blow a whistle. If a push using the ball exceeds that threshold of advantage/disadvantage, its player control. It goes to the next level if you deem it intentionally excessive, i.e. poke in face. Also, many kids are fast enough to push another player away without the defense getting a held ball.

It's immaterial to consider a ball or jersey intervening as "armor" to negate a whistle for a contact foul. If you apply this logic, basketball uniforms as we know it will cease to exist...being replaced with motocross pads and helmets. A trip from behind could be legal because the shoe did it, not the player.

BTW - You probably won't see a rule or case on this because some bookworm would have been pretty quick to bring it up.

No, going for the steal is likely to get that fine defender called for a hack; so that fine defender doesn't pick up a silly fouls.

Isn't pushing the defender away with the ball contact?