Foul or No Call?

[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

[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.

[Smitty]

And if you noticed after Mick posted some further clarifications, I agreed that something probably needed to be called. We all have what we picture in our minds as to how this play unfolded in real life. Other than the OP who was there and saw it, no one can give an absolute answer on how this should have been called. As in most judgment calls, arguments can be made either way.

[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.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

How is going from an upright position where you can play defense or transition to offense to on the floor with the player that put you there on top of you not being put at a disadvantage?

This is a no-brainer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mick

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.

I can see that option too. It really just depends on the game and the play at hand. Being knocked over is not, to me, an automatic foul. It does make it a lot more likely, but not 100% automatic.