PC or nothing?
 

A1 drives down the lane and slams into B1 who has LGP. B1, however, is considerably larger than A1 and the contact does not budge B1, while A1 goes flying and the loses control of the ball...I come out with a PC foul, but after thinking about it further in an advantage/disadvantage context I am wondering if the correct call there is no call....I have been to several camps where clinicians would say I am sure that if there is that kind of contact you must have a foul, but B1 was not necessarily put at a disadvantage by the contact, and there was no way I could have a block on the play...thoughts?

Have to see it. :D

But, seriously, I'd have to see it.

I have been taught - Spud Web sized individual charges down the court at full speed and runs into Shaq sized person who has been standing in the key. Shaq doesn't move, Spud goes flying....whatya got?

Charge? Spud didn't create an advantage? Block? Shaq had LGP and didn't move! Same scenario.....yes? Got nuttin.

Picture this...VG, 105lb point guard runs full speed into the 180lb center who is doing nothing more than standing still with her arms straight up...ball and point guard go flying...assuming that I was correct in judging that the defense had obtained LGP, what do you have?

Same scenario yes.....while Spud didn't creat an advantage on this play, if the loose ball is recovered by one of Spud's teammates for a layup, seems unfair to Shaq when all he had to do is fall backwards on the contact to get a PC foul...granted this is not the intention of "advantage/disadvantage" officiating, but still....like I said I called the PC foul and didn't feel great about it afterwards, and the more I think about it in an advantage/disadvantage context I would probably have nothing the next time I see this...just have to be prepared to take a ton of heat for the no call, but I believe it is the correct call....

And, as Yogi Berra would say - if you call a charge, half the people will be unhappy.....if you call a block.....half the people will be unhappy......and if you call nothing? The other half will think your crazy as there just HAS to be a call! ;)

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

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.

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?

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.

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 ...

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"

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.

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.

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.

Based on what rule?

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.

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....

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.)
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.

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...

Forget about the advantages of actually getting the foul called.

It's like when the pg gets hacked on the elbow on his way by the defender. Let it go, because there was no advantage gained. You're not penalizing the guard for not losing the ball.

Forget about the fact that the foul call is itself an advantage. It's not. It's a penalty for advantage already gained.

And just because there's contact prior to the flop doesn't guarantee the foul will be called. Over time, officials get good at recognizing this (not perfect, but good.)

This is exactly the correct way to think about this...

If she has to *think* to go down, then it's a flop, and I'd still have nothing.

(I'm not saying I haven't been fooled on a similar play, or that I won't be fooled again -- but I've also seen the flop and had the no-call -- even with contact.)

Yeah but believe me when I tell you that you wouldn't have had a flop on this one given the severity of the contact....but I understand your point...

Clearly the answer is not to encourage the kid to flop or to reward the flop. And how do we do that? By calling the foul when it happens.

The rule 10 cite is in fact the defintion of the foul for illegal contact. The rule 4 cite I provided is the cite for incidental contact. You have to view those in conjunction with each other. You start with rule 10 because if contact doesnt even violate rule 10 in any way, it is definately not a fould. once you have contact that may be a foul under rule 10 you look to rule 4's incidental contact. if the contact is incidental, even if severe, it is to be considered legal. On top of that you then use the judgment given by the introductory Intent of the Rules provision. That is how rules analysis is done regarding contact.

My argument here is that:

1. the contact is illegal under rule 10, that is clear. No one can dispute that. the ballhandler has without question violated the contact rule.

2. incidental contact analysis under rule 4. some could say because there was no advantage/disadvantage it should be ignored or considered legal. i dont find this contact to be incidental, but i agree some could.

3. intent of the rules. all judgment needs to be run through this portion of the rule book in my opinion. here, the rules are to promote safety, equality of skill over physical features, and to not allow a benefit or detriment not intended by the rules. some may disagree with me philosphically, but if i had any hesitation in making the call as a result of 2, above, that hesitation is removed when i consider the requirements of the intent of the rules.

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?

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.

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.

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." :)

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 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.

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."

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 <b>aren't</b> fouls. If so, I agree with that.

Rich?

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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."

How do you know if it's full speed?

What if it's 90% of full speed? 75%? 10%?

And how many times have you seen a player crash into a defender at "full speed" and the defender isn't displaced? Can't say that I've ever seen it.

Full speed or not, the OP's situation was that he "slams" into the defender with LGP. I guess I agree with Jimgolf.

I've seen kids drive the lane and slam into the defender, and unless he's coming from half court building speed, this "slam" isn't normally that hard. Usually, it looks a lot worse for A1 because of the complete and sudden stop.

I'll reiterate. If the kid comes in like a cannon ball, call the foul. If the defender gets hit that hard, though, there's going to be some displacement.