PC or nothing?

[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.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would not say that the defender was put at a disadvantage, she really didn't move....like I mentioned, the only disadvantage would have occurred if one of A's teammates recovered the loose ball under the basket and shot a layup when B1 was in great position and made a good play...BUT I realize that this is not the way that we call advantage/disadvantage, it only applies to the actual play, not subsequent action...again the thing that bothered me is that B1 COULD have just flopped in this case and there would have been more than enough contact for any official to call the PC foul - it is almost like we penalize her for NOT flopping....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kbilla

it is almost like we penalize her for NOT flopping....

How? She did her job, right? She stopped the dribbler. She wasn't hurt. She wasn't put at a disadvantage. She isn't punished.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How? She did her job, right? She stopped the dribbler. She wasn't hurt. She wasn't put at a disadvantage. She isn't punished.

Right, but had she thought to go down she would have done all of the things you mentioned AND she would have drawn a foul on A1, a team foul on A, and guaranteed posession for her team....again, I agree that after further consideration I probably would not call this the next time, but it doesn't sit 100% right with me...

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

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

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

You started to go the right direction when you referenced 4-27. The 10-6-7 tells you who the responsibility is on. 4-27 defines the foul, not 10-6-7. (I'm assuming it's 4-27 where the definition of foul is found, as my rule book is in Colorado and I'm with my folks in Iowa.)

Originally Posted by cdaref

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.

Let me ask this. How is he being "punished" for being big when he wasn't put at a disadvantage? His intent is to stop the dribbler from penetrating towards the basket. He's done this.

Again, if the pg is flying into the defender like a Kamakaze pilot and it's a safety thing; go ahead and get it. But don't think it's a foul just because the player goes against 10-6-7. There's a number of other sections of rule 10 that make other plays a foul, by your interpretation, without any contact. You can't just use rule 10 to determine what's a foul. You need to combine it with rule 4.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's a number of other sections of rule 10 that make other plays a foul, by your interpretation, without any contact. You can't just use rule 10 to determine what's a foul. You need to combine it with rule 4.

I dont think you are getting what i am saying. You cant have a foul under rule 10 I cited without contact, that is the illegal contact rule. I think perhaps you dont have your books in front of you. Check them, then lets talk. No, you dont just use rule 10, but that is where you start. It defines what illegal contact is that is a foul. You then use rule 4 as I detail above.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, you are just saying that in your judgment it is incidental contact from rule 4 because the big kid didnt move and in your analysis there was no advantage disadvantage.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I dont think you are getting what i am saying. You cant have a foul under rule 10 I cited without contact, that is the illegal contact rule. I think perhaps you dont have your books in front of you. Check them, then lets talk. No, you dont just use rule 10, but that is where you start. It defines what illegal contact is that is a foul. You then use rule 4 as I detail above.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, you are just saying that in your judgment it is incidental contact from rule 4 because the big kid didnt move and in your analysis there was no advantage disadvantage.

You're saying one of two things: 1. Advantage isn't required here because the dribbler broke rule 10. 2. There is some sort of advantage/disadvantage I'm not seeing.

You're right on what I'm saying, and you're right that I don't have my rule book in front of me. My rule book is 960 miles away right now, so if you don't think I'm worthy of discussing it with you until I can hold the book in my hands, so be it, it'll have to wait a week or so.

My point isn't with illegal screens. Consider A1 driving to the hoop, B1 reaches through and hacks A1 on the elbow as he drives, but it has zero effect on A1's drive. Are you going to call this foul, or are you going to let it go because there was no advantage gained?

Most here would say let it go and allow A1 the fruits of his drive to the basket. If you're going to call this a foul, why doesn't it fit the "incidental contact" definition?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I dont think you are getting what i am saying. You cant have a foul under rule 10 I cited without contact, that is the illegal contact rule. I think perhaps you dont have your books in front of you. Check them, then lets talk. No, you dont just use rule 10, but that is where you start. It defines what illegal contact is that is a foul. You then use rule 4 as I detail above.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, you are just saying that in your judgment it is incidental contact from rule 4 because the big kid didnt move and in your analysis there was no advantage disadvantage.

I'm not sure rule 10 is where you start. Rule 10-6 is a kind of detailed description of legal and illegal contact, but even illegal contact can be no-called if it doesn't fit rule 4. If you start with rule 4, and define a foul as illegal contact that creates an advantage or disadvantage, then the OP is clearly not a foul. Don't even need to look at rule 10.