Foul or No Call?

[bigda65]

I am really not sure who wound up with the ball, I think A ended up with the ball back.

JR the player that got checked had no chance at the loose ball, as a matter of fact the Team A player was on top of him on the floor.

I just wanted to get you guys opinions. It looked really weird with the bodies on the floor and the way it happened.

There was no call on this play, fans going wild, both coaches yelling. (not that any of that means anything).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bigda65

There was no call on this play, fans going wild, both coaches yelling. (not that any of that means anything).

Contact, even contact that might be severe, does not necessarily mean that a foul has been committed. That's exactly why you're right when you say that fans going wild and coaches yelling mean nuthin'.

Coaches and fans have both an agenda and a bias. Officials just react.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Contact, even contact that might be severe, does not necessarily mean that a foul has been committed.

Out-of-control player cross-checks an opponent to the floor.
...I think I'll go get that one.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bigda65

JR the player that got checked had no chance at the loose ball, as a matter of fact the Team A player was on top of him on the floor.

Of course he has no play on the ball of A1 is on top of him. The question is, would the player that got slammed into have had a reasonable chance to make a play on the loose ball had he not been slammed into?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Of course he has no play on the ball of A1 is on top of him. The question is, would the player that got slammed into have had a reasonable chance to make a play on the loose ball had he not been slammed into?

Let's assume the defender had no chance for the loose ball, yet he has still ended up on his back due to contact.
...I don't have any question.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by mick

Let's assume the defender had no chance for the loose ball, yet he has still ended up on his back due to contact.
...I don't have any question.

It does sound like a train wreck, especially if the kid is now underneath A1 and now can't help on defense if A2, who now has control of the ball gets an easy layup. This is something that probably should have been called.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Of course he has no play on the ball of A1 is on top of him. The question is, would the player that got slammed into have had a reasonable chance to make a play on the loose ball had he not been slammed into?

what does one have to do with the other? I guess we can throw each players right to a position on the court out the door if they dont have a reasonable chance to make a play on the ball.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by deecee

what does one have to do with the other? I guess we can throw each players right to a position on the court out the door if they dont have a reasonable chance to make a play on the ball.

What are you talking about? Not that you'll comprehend this, but the reason would be to determine if the contact was inadvertent or not. Not all contact is a foul, but I'm talking to a wall here...

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Smitty

What are you talking about? Not that you'll comprehend this, but the reason would be to determine if the contact was inadvertent or not. Not all contact is a foul, but I'm talking to a wall here...

so if the defender didnt have a chance at making a play on the ball and the offensive player who just lost position barrels into him because lets say he tripped over his own feet you would call an intentional? I just dont see why the ball has to be involved for inadvertent contact or not.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by deecee

so if the defender didnt have a chance at making a play on the ball and the offensive player who just lost position barrels into him because lets say he tripped over his own feet you would call an intentional? I just dont see why the ball has to be involved for inadvertent contact or not.

When did I mention the word "intentional" anywhere? I have no clue what you're talking about. Have you hit on any coaches lately?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Smitty

When did I mention the word "intentional" anywhere? I have no clue what you're talking about. Have you hit on any coaches lately?

in 7 years only came across 1 cute one...

but in this case why would you not have a whistle? inadvertent or not a crosscheck deserves a whistle -- just my opinion. Ignoring it will only lead to more ugliness and escalation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

so if the defender didn't have a chance at making a play on the ball and the offensive player who just lost position barrels into him because lets say he tripped over his own feet you would call an intentional? I just don't see why the ball has to be involved for inadvertent contact or not.

Not intentioal....possibly NOTHING at all. Contact that creates an advantage or is "too" rough is a foul. Just because a player gets knocked down doesn't mean either occurred.

Play:
A1, with a backcourt throwin, passes ball to A2. The ball sails over A2's head. A2, in trying to get to the ball stumbles, falls to the floor, and rolls into B2's legs....taking them out from under B2 and B2 falls as a result. The ball went to the area of A4 and B4 and was 30' from B2, who was making no attempt to go with the ball.....he was staying with A2. I'll have no foul.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not intentioal....possibly NOTHING at all. Contact that creates an advantage or is "too" rough is a foul. Just because a player gets knocked down doesn't mean either occured.

Play:
A1, with a backcourt throwin, passes ball to A2. The ball sails over A2's head. A2, in trying to get to the ball stumbles, falls to the floor, and rolls into B2's legs....taking them out from under B2 and B2 falls as a result. The ball when to the area of A4 and B4 and was 30' from B2, who was making no attempt to go with the ball.....he was staying with A2. No foul.

Camron I agree - I have been addressing the OP here in regards to the player delivering a crosscheck -- i dont see where inadvertent or not comes into the contact here. In my mind crosscheck is a bit of a rough contact and should be dealt with. IMO

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not intentioal....possibly NOTHING at all. Contact that creates an advantage or is "too" rough is a foul. Just because a player gets knocked down doesn't mean either occurred.

Play:
A1, with a backcourt throwin, passes ball to A2. The ball sails over A2's head. A2, in trying to get to the ball stumbles, falls to the floor, and rolls into B2's legs....taking them out from under B2 and B2 falls as a result. The ball went to the area of A4 and B4 and was 30' from B2, who was making no attempt to go with the ball.....he was staying with A2. I'll have no foul.

From here that looks like an off-ball foul, due to clumsiness, or not. A2 put B2 on the floor, a position from which B2 could not play normal defense, nor could B2 get the pass from B4 on the fast break.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by deecee

what does one have to do with the other?

If the contact didn't put either player at a disadvantage, the play can be ruled as incidental contact. The concepts are listed in rule 4-27. Article 3 of that rule is probably the applicable one in this case...."Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

Always a judgment call. Smitty has the right take on what to look for imo.