Unless you think it's intentional. :) Yes, there is some discretion allowed on dead ball situations.

It's not an option, the rule states that the official SHALL ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.

Now I'd like to ask a few questions to spark some discussion.

1) If the contact affects the play, does it have to be called and can the logic be applied in reverse to derive that the foul has to be an intentional technical foul or does the above rule take priority? Perhaps an unsporting technical foul is the answer.

2) Can contact that starts and finishes while the ball is dead have an impact upon action once the ball becomes live? Afterall, the player is certainly free to move during the time that the ball is live, so what's the problem?

3) If the contact starts while the ball is dead and continues into a live ball period can a common foul could be called?

1) I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. But whether the T is deemed intentional or unsporting is really only academic. The penalty is the same.

2) Contact that is finished before the ball becomes live can still have an effect once the ball is live. For example, holding an opponent who is setting up to run a throw in play can keep that player from taking advantage of an opportunity to get open or being able to screen for a teammate. I'm not suggesting that it always has an effect, but there are times that it would.

3) If the dead ball act is deemed intentional or flagrant or unsporting, the ball does not become live because of the foul.

If it's not deemed intentional, then I think we could easily have a situation where contact that can't be called a foul during the deal ball becomes a common foul once the ball becomes live.

But in practice I sometimes see technically intentional contact during a dead ball that does get called as a common foul once the ball becomes live. I'm thinking of throw ins where the defender is holding the offensive player. The covering official will usually just tell the defender to knock if off and wait until he complies. But if he goes right back to it, the official will usually hand ball to the thrower, then call the foul.

Good thoughts, BITS.

1. I'll try to clarify. First now that I think about it an unsporting T is NOT an option because by definition that is for a noncontact act and this act involved physical contact. Secondly, my question relates to how an official should properly arrive at a decision in a case of dead ball contact.
Must the official decide only upon the basis of the contact itself whether the action warrants an intentional or flagrant foul, and since this contact is during a dead ball the foul then becomes a T, or can an official reason as follows: there was contact during a dead ball which would not have been considered intentional or flagrant had it occurred during a live ball, but this contact had a clear affect upon the play, so I have to call it a foul (this part is the crux of the ?), now what kind of foul is it? Well, since it had to be called and occurred during a dead ball it must be either intentional or flagrant.

My opinion is that the first approach is correct and that the second way of thinking is circular and begs the question, and therefore also incorrect. However, I have spoken to officials who have explained a call that he/she made in this manner.

2. I agree with you on the point about restricting movement to another location. However, if we focus upon the jumpball situation posed, then that aspect is not a consideration. So if the player let's go of the jumper prior to the toss, does the dead ball hold have any real impact? One could certainly argue that it doesn't physically, but it might affect the opponent mentally. He may not be prepared to jump or he may be distracted.

3. "If it's not deemed intentional, then I think we could easily have a situation where contact that can't be called a foul during the deal ball becomes a common foul once the ball becomes live."
I concur and that was the exact point that I hoped to make.

2) There are all kinds of situations where illegal contact now is enough to physically disrupt an opponent a second or two later, whether it's keeping him from jumping as high, throwing off his timing or rythm, leads to a stumble or fumble. Holding the jumper until just before the toss *could* have a very real impact. Obviously it would be a HTBT thing. But if it did impact the player, I don't see how you could call anything other than the intentional T as the illegal contact took place entirely during the dead ball.

Distracted, OTOH, I don't think is often a valid consideration. Each player is responsible to maintain his own focus; and his opponent is supposed to distract him. But other than disconcerting a free thrower, or placing hands near a player's eyes, I can't think of any other case where I'd deem a distraction to be an illegal advantage. Well, maybe faking a shot to an opponent's sensitive areas, but that would fall into the unsporting foul category.

Without expressing my personal opinion on this play, in the interest of stimulating discussion, I'm going to further probe your responses. This doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree.

Is impact upon the play or player a criterion which an official can/should use to determine if contact is intentional or flagrant or should intentional/flagrant be judged solely on the contact itself and not its effect?
If an official believes that the contact made an impact does that mean that it was intentional? Is that circular thinking? Perhaps basketball decision making wasn't intended to work in this direction.

How about contact at a time when it is unexpected or inappropriate? This could startle an opponent and cause a delayed response to the next play when the ball does become live. Perhaps a poke in the back causes a player to turn around to see who contacted him and at this time the ball goes up. Now the opposing jumper is uncontested. Is that kind of action good gamesmanship or not in the spirit of fair play?

Yes. I'm just saying that if you call anything, it has to be a T.

4-19-3
 

Rule 4-19-3 An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

I'm leaning toward intentional, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

you let a player whine all night long? at some point enough is enough....

and if this was the opening play, and I saw it, i'm not sure I wouldn't eject him right on the spot just to get the problem out of the way of a ball game. Holding a player down to keep him from jumping is REALLY unsporting, and really is pretty down right flagrant.

where was the partner during this - could he not see?

In general, I think seeing the result of contact that may be intentional or flagrant can usefully inform the decision. And, in the case of neutralizing an opponent's obvious advantageous position, it is very much an after-the-fact decision. However, all the examples I'm coming up with have to do with an IF or FF during a live ball.

The "circular reasoning" part of your question is intriguing. In addition to allowing the result of the foul inform your decision, there is the matter of the more exacting criteria for intentional and flagrant fouls. Strictly by rule, a foul you wouldn't judge intentional during a live ball, shouldn't be judged intentional during a dead ball. The rule is the same.

But that leaves us with a potential conundrum which is that common foul contact which occurs entirely within a dead ball period, if it impacts the subsequent live ball play, technically must be passed on. But I do not believe that such a ruling is within the intent or spirit of the rules. So perhaps the "line" between common and intentional shouldn't always be drawn in the same place for both live ball and dead ball situations.

However, in the OP, holding the jumper prior to the toss seems to be a clear case of "contact...when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player". I'm probably going to have an intentional T here if I see it. And if pressed, I'm going to judge that the fouler's intent was to keep the clock from starting. It probably ain't true, but I'm unwilling to let this punk get off on a technicality like that. ;)

But I remain unconvinced about the distraction issue. While not entirely in the spirit of fair play, I have a difficult time conceiving of too many distractions I would deem an illegal advantage. Having said that, in your poke in the back scenario, if it's a non-jumper poking a jumper, it's a clear violation for breaking the plane of the circle. I don't have my book handy so I won't assert this with certainty, but I believe both jumpers are required to be in their own half of the circle. So a poke in the back by the other jumper would also be a violation. Similar "protections" exist for players on the lane during a free throw, for the thrower during a free throw, and the thrower during a throw-in. So I guess there are more situations than I first considered where such a distracting act would actually be illegal. Though, in general, I don't think that was the reason those rule exist, and I still don't consider distracting an opponent illegal, just bad basketball. However, if the Fed wants to make it explicitly illegal to distract an opponent, I would be absolutely giddy to whack somebody for screaming at the shooter or yelling "BALL BALL BALL..." :D

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to communicate! I love it when someone else grasps the rules discussion on an intellectual and philosophical level. Your last sentence lists what I believe to be a clear flaw in the rules.

The rules only prohibit a nonjumper from breaking the plane of the circle with a FOOT. The rule says nothing about other body parts. There is no protection other than a foul, but we have just discussed how calling one in this case is paradoxical.

BTW the rule for players in marked lane-spaces is the written the same way.

Well, not being on your lofty intellectual and philosophical plane, I still think that it isn't a flaw for any official who possesses even a modicum of common sense. If you think that the act wasn't a "common foul", then it still meets the definition of NFHS rule 10-3-8.....<i>A player shall not <b>intentionally</b> or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and <b>such contact is NOT a personal foul</b>"</i>. Iow, if you think that the act was unsporting, then just call the damn thing. That's the purpose and intent of the rule, even though it might not be spelled out using 10,000 additional words to cover every situation that could possibly arise during a game.

Lah me...paralysis by analysis.....

I have 2 kids, an ex-wife, a girlfriend, and 4 women work in my office. I'm oblivious to whining. ;) It's an over-40 Rec League, I don't officiate it the same way I do my HS and JuCo games. He whined but he wasn't rude about it, so I let it go in one ear and out the other.

I'm quite sure my partner wasn't paying attention to the jumpers.

Awwww. Does somebody need a hug? :D

According to the rules you are incorrect. Too bad, JR. :(

4-19-14 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.