PC or nothing?

[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?

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Geez, no, thats not what I am saying at all. I've read your posts over and over and obviously you know what you are talking about. I'm not questioning you or making personal attacks, for goodness sake. This isnt about being worthy or not worthy. I'm not sure why you have to take it like that. Seems to happen alot on these boards, though. Not sure why.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Geez, no, thats not what I am saying at all. I've read your posts over and over and obviously you know what you are talking about. I'm not questioning you or making personal attacks, for goodness sake. This isnt about being worthy or not worthy. I'm not sure why you have to take it like that. Seems to happen alot on these boards, though. Not sure why.

Sorry, I must have come across a bit more surly than I intended.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

The reason I referenced you checking the books is when you said: "4-27 defines the foul, not 10-6-7." I dont think that is correct and I wanted you to check them and then see if that is still your position. 10-6-7 defines the foul and 4-27 is the incidental contact definition which could render contact that would otherwise be a foul to not be a foul.

Its not a personal attack on you. In fact, I'd love to hear your continued analysis of this issue.

[Jurassic Referee]

My analysis of this issue?

1) Who cares whether it's in rule 4 or rule 10? That's a non-issue. The idea is to know the applicable rules concepts and how to apply them.
2) It's strictly a judgment call by the official on the spot as to whether it's a charge or a no-call. As long as he doesn't go for a block, I'm happy.
3) Whatever you call, get the ball back into play quickly. Cuts down any b!tching and the beer doesn't get warm.

[ace]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

My analysis of this issue?
3) Whatever you call, get the ball back into play quickly. Cuts down any b!tching and the beer doesn't get warm.

here here!

Don't bail the little guy out. He saw thte 6'5 center when his 5'8 body went into the lane. He knew what he was getting himself into. If smashes into the defender, who had LGP, then you have two calls, nothing, or PC. It doesn't matter what happens to the PG after he nails the guy. But if he nailed the guy like the OP said, you have the no call or PC.

I don't like the no-call because the kid had LGP becasue your basically penalizing him for being big (even with no call) so long as he didn't flinch and took it square like a man, go with your gut. I like the PC here.

2 weeks ago, Varsity boys game, big center, small point guard. PG goes in and nails C square in the chest. C took it hard but was so big it didn't phase him, I still had a player control. Visiting coach "WHAT!? He didn't even fall down." me:"doesnt matter coach - still a charge" coach:"Yeah, but I gotta say something to keep my guys fired up."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

The reason I referenced you checking the books is when you said: "4-27 defines the foul, not 10-6-7." I dont think that is correct and I wanted you to check them and then see if that is still your position. 10-6-7 defines the foul and 4-27 is the incidental contact definition which could render contact that would otherwise be a foul to not be a foul.

Its not a personal attack on you. In fact, I'd love to hear your continued analysis of this issue.

My thought on this is that 4-27 makes this, in all likelihood, incidental contact and therefore a no-call. You're not penalizing the guy for his size, since his goal was achieved. Even if A1 doesn't lose the ball or violate (travel, illegal dribble, etc), B1 was successful in stopping A1's drive.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

In my experience, a quality varsity official would let this go 100% of the time (except in Minnesota, where it's likely a flagrant foul). But this play, in practice over time, would be a great example of the kind of play an official needs to learn how to call before making the jump into being a quality top-level official.

There is a lot of contact in basketball these days and we need to make sure we're getting the fouls that affect the play and passing on those that interrupt the flow of the game and do nothing but run up the foul totals and start a never-ending parade to the free throw line.

The person above quoting rule after rule trying to justify a position should step away from the rulebook for a minute. I know the rules inside and out, however you cannot simply apply written words to scenarios and churn them through some kind of machine and be told whether there is a foul or not. There is an art to making quick decisions on advantage and disadvantage and those people are the ones who are successful at the varsity level and above.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

There is a lot of contact in basketball these days and we need to make sure we're getting the fouls that affect the play and passing on those that interrupt the flow of the game and do nothing but run up the foul totals ,,,

I think you mean "passing when to call the foul would only interrupt the flow of the game", right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I think you mean "passing when to call the foul would only interrupt the flow of the game", right?

I think that he's saying that you pass on the plays that aren't fouls. If so, I agree with that.

Rich?

[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.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

I dont disagree with this approach. But I prefer to start with 10 then go to 4. Was the contact even a foul under the rules? If so, do ad/disad. Also, keep in mind the concepts contained in the Intent portion. Maybe I shouldnt do my process that way, but I do. Obviously, on the court, you do it in a split second. I'm sure I never in my life will ever talk myself through things like that on the court. There isnt enough time. And the officials that try to do that wind up paralyzed on the court and dont make any calls. I am talking about how I analyze things after the fact when I try to think about calls and situations.

I think this is an interesting discussion, personally, that leads us to rules analysis and philosophy. I like that stuff.

I still have the foul, but as I said before I would definately post game it with my partner: "did you see that charge I had, what did you have on that?" He may way say "I would have no-called it."