PC or nothing?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In this area of the country we call that a Bono (or for those in CO a Kennedy).

Ouch!

As for the OP, I've got nothing. I've made this call before and regretted it. The pg didn't create any advantage, and this applies even if the pg holds the ball without violating, or the loose ball gets recovered by the offense.

Now, if it looks like the defender got hit so hard he may be hurt, call the foul.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Now, if it looks like the defender got hit so hard he may be hurt, call the foul.

I'm just curious where in the rule book it says you decide whether or not to call a foul based on whether or not someone got hurt?

[cdaref]

kb, I think I've got a player control foul like you had.

And, like you, I probably agonize over whether or not I should have passed on it.

But in the end, the rules are the rules. You cant say "oh, he's big, so no foul" just like you can't say "oh, he's short, so we gotta find something." If, as you describe, the guard SLAMS into a defender with LGP, thats a player control foul. And, as others have noted, the fact the defender doesnt fall over isnt the only way an advantage could be gained. Plus, you cant penalize the big guy for being big. He got the position, as the rules say. He drew the charge, as the rules say. Make the call. I understand why you are agonizing over it. But dont.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdaref

kb, I think I've got a player control foul like you had.

And, like you, I probably agonize over whether or not I should have passed on it.

But in the end, the rules are the rules. You cant say "oh, he's big, so no foul" just like you can't say "oh, he's short, so we gotta find something." If, as you describe, the guard SLAMS into a defender with LGP, thats a player control foul. And, as others have noted, the fact the defender doesnt fall over isnt the only way an advantage could be gained. Plus, you cant penalize the big guy for being big. He got the position, as the rules say. He drew the charge, as the rules say. Make the call. I understand why you are agonizing over it. But dont.

Reference, pleae, for calling the contact when it didn't (as a given in the OP) place the defender at a disadvantage or give the offense an advaantage.

After all, "the rules are the rules"

[cdaref]

Reference, please, for requirement that a person with LGP needs to fall over for there to be a disadvantage.

Plus, I dont see the OP saying the defense was not put at a disadvantage. I see the OP saying that he was wondering about whether there was or was not an advantage or disadvantage. He certainly doesnt say in his post: "there was no advantage or disadvantage." What he says is B1 had LGP and ballhandler A1 "slams" into B1, A1 goes flying and loses the ball.

Also please note that I am not mandating a PC call there. I am saying it is a tight one and that I likely would have had a PC call. I am saying I would reward the defender for LGP and then getting "slammed" into.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Reference, please, for requirement that a person with LGP needs to fall over for there to be a disadvantage.

There isn't one. But, it's a given in the OP that there was no disadvantage. So, there can't be a personal foul.

If you want to cahnge the play to say "Large B1 has LGP and is run into by small A2 casuing (insert disadvantage here) but B1 doesn't fall down", then I agree with your call.

[cdaref]

Sorry, I edited my post while you were replying it seems. I dont see the OP saying there was no advantage/disadvantage. I see him struggling with whether or not there was. Ad/Disad can come from lots of things.

Please see my additional comments above. We are probably coming close to saying the same thing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Also please note that I am not mandating a PC call there. I am saying it is a tight one and that I likely would have had a PC call. I am saying I would reward the defender for LGP and then getting "slammed" into.

Based on what rule?

[cdaref]

Since you asked, how about 10-6-7:

"A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact any opponent in his/her path.."

Just on the language of the rule alone it is a foul. Lets not forget that the foul rule itself does not reference advantage/disadvantage. Obviously, as officials we read advantage/disadvantage into that equation (based on the Intent of teh Rules and on 4-27). But advantage/disadvantage is only one of the important aspects of officiating judgment. It comes from "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules," which reads:

"The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behaviour and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill wihtout unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense."

"Therefore it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so taht it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

Further, 10-6-9 places the responsibility for contact on the dribbler in this situation:

"When a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight line path ... if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble."

Clearly, the dribbler is at fault here and has violated the rules. We use advantage/disadvantage as a guide in deciding what to call. But that is not hte only guide, as noted above.

Also it is clear that contact alone does not mandate a foul call. See 4-27 (the other rule source for advantage / disadvantage).

In my view the contact here is by the dribbler against a defender who had legal guarding position and the obligation is on the dribbler to avoid the contact or discontinue his dribble.

I am not willing to say the contact here was incidental since it would have knocked over any other player who wasnt as massive as B1.

Plus, the intent of the rules includes, in addition to advantage and disadvantage: "to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behaviour and fair play."

I dont think permitting conduct that would otherwise be a foul but for the size of B1 is something we should permit. The rules want us to provide equal opportunities, not punish a guy for being big.

Also, I dont think it promotes or provides reasonable safety or protection for B1. It instead promotes reckless abandon by A when they see that severe of a contact is a no call. Furhter, I dont think you need to wait for B1 to be injured before you find disadvantage or a foul.

You may disagree. You may say this is a no call. That is fine. I agree, and have agreed from the beginning that I would make this call but probably agonize about it. But dont pretend there is no rule support for making the call.

In my view, the rules intend for this to be a foul. The strange circumstance that B1 is so huge as to not be knocked over is one of those things that the Intent of the Rules means when it says: "A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

That said, its alot like officiating Shaq. Its tough to call fouls when they have no effect on the guy, or call a charge when the guy doesnt move. But at the HS level I think this needs to be a foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I'm just curious where in the rule book it says you decide whether or not to call a foul based on whether or not someone got hurt?

If someone is hurt, then they are likely at a disadvantage.

That's not the only criteria for a foul, of course, but if the other elements are there ...