PC or nothing?

[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."

[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."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I dont disagree with this approach. But I prefer to start with 10 then go to 4.

I don't think an official should "start with 10 and then go to 4" or "start with 4 and then go to 10."

The official needs to read and understand rules 1-10 (and the intorductory comments, and the fundamentals, and all the supplemental information, ...) to make a decision (not only on this play, but on all plays).

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by cdaref

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.

Okay, well, either way, what A/D did you see in the OP? Besides the advantage of having a foul called?

Originally Posted by cdaref

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.

Agreed. The thinking we do after the game and then on this board is how we get better. Using it adjust the toggles we flip quickly on the floor.

Originally Posted by cdaref

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

I agree 100%. THis type of thread is this board at it's best.

Originally Posted by cdaref

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."

And then would your thinking change? Would it depend on the partner? Just curious how your analysis works.

[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 Jurassic Referee

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

Rich?

RIght, I agree too. Just saying the wording is a little iffy...

[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.

[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 Jurassic Referee

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

Rich?

Both you and Juulie are right. I don't post well at 9AM. Hell, I worked a boys varsity game at 10:30AM yesterday and it just felt, I don't know, weird. Especially after working the night before and having, ahem, a few nightcaps afterwards.

[cdaref]

By the way, it has always amazed me that 4-27 doesnt have a single case play for it in the case book. (and, if I recally correctly, isnt even cited by rule in any of the rule 10 case plays).

[Jimgolf]

Running into a defender with LGP at full speed is a foul. Just because the player isn't displaced doesn't mean that no advantage has been gained. The player has been able to break the rule against charging. That is a clear advantage. Not to mention that injury may have occurred but that the injury may not immediately be apparent. As someone always says here, "call the obvious."