Foul or No Call?
 

A1 has ball in frontcourt. Player dribbles 100 mph and wildly through the lane. He loses the ball and continues through the lane and stumbles ( probably two or three more steps without the ball, then stumbled).
It looked like he crossbody checked the defensive forward and knocked him down.

I could not tell if he stepped on someones foot or not, or would it even matter?

PC Foul on Team A1 or a no call ?

If the ball was still loose. I have a TC on Team A.

First, if he lost the ball on the way into the lane, then it can't be a PC foul.

Second, it all depends on what happened with the ball, what kind of contact there was, etc. It doesn't sound like stepping on a foot or not had much to do with it if he was out of control. If the ball went OOB before the contact, then you most likely have a no-call, because your only other option is an intentional technical foul. If the player he ran into had no shot at the ball, wouldn't have been in position to defend a player from A who got the ball, and the contact wasn't severe, I'd probably lean toward a no call. If the contact was severe or B1 was put at a disadvantage in either getting the ball or in defending the player who did get the ball, then I've got a foul on A1.

If calling a foul, it would be a common foul, which may or may not be a TC foul based on what happened with the ball after he lost it and before contact was made.

Edit: Important note - if this is a bang-bang play and the contact would have been an easy PC foul if the player still had the ball, it probably should be called here, though it would be a TC foul if the ball hadn't been gathered by B.

wow, lots of assumptions here. One he lost the ball without being fouled, two, an opponent has not gained control of the ball before the crossbody check, and three you deem the contact by A1 on B not incidental.

since he does not have the ball it can not be Player Control, so as Mick says may be Team control depending on assumptions above.

TC foul or no call. If the defensive player that got schmucked had zero chance of getting to the loose ball, it could be incidental contact. It's a gotta see call.

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).

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.

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?

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

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.

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... :rolleyes:

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? :confused:

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.

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.

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

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....<i>"Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."</i>

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

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.

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.

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.

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.