Foul on jump ball participant

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let's look at that rule again.

I think the part I highlighted in red leaves room to call an unsporting foul even when contact is involved. In fact, I think it specifically applies to a situation when, prior to the ball becoming live, a player grabs an opponent to prevent him from moving or to "get in his head."

Wouldn't that be intentional, dead-ball contact.

Say a A1 makes a break-away lay-up. While the ball is still laying on the ground and prior to a 5-second count commencing A1 purposely goes out of his way to "shoulder bump" B1 who is running down to inbound the ball. You have intentional, dead-ball contact.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Wouldn't that be intentional, dead-ball contact.

Say a A1 makes a break-away lay-up. While the ball is still laying on the ground and prior to a 5-second count commencing A1 purposely goes out of his way to "shoulder bump" B1 who is running down to inbound the ball. You have intentional, dead-ball contact.

Hey Bad News,
Are you going to the camp in Suwanee July 6-9?

[Adam]

That works, too. Either way, you have a technical foul. However, I think the leeway is for situations where contact may not have been intentional (maybe the player obviously meant to fake the bump).

If a player is going beyond the bounds of fair play, and otherwise incidental contact occurs as a result, that contact doesn't negate the ability to call a technical foul.

Bottom line, call the T and let Nevada figure out why.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Bottom line, call the T and let Nevada figure out why.

I actually have partners who do that!

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think the part I highlighted in red leaves room to call an unsporting foul even when contact is involved. In fact, I think it specifically applies to a situation when, prior to the ball becoming live, a player grabs an opponent to prevent him from moving or to "get in his head."

Sorry, but as the word "noncontact" immediately preceeds "technical foul" it obviously serves as an absolute modifier. The NFHS has gone out of its way to clearly specify that this foul is for noncontact. Thus there is no wiggle room here. I have to disagree with you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Quote:




Sorry, but as the word "noncontact" immediately preceeds "technical foul" it obviously serves as an absolute modifier. The NFHS has gone out of its way to clearly specify that this foul is for noncontact. Thus there is no wiggle room here. I have to disagree with you.

Okay, I'm convinced. How exactly does it matter, again? What play or actions would it affect?

[rlarry]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, I'm convinced. How exactly does it matter, again? What play or actions would it affect?

I hate to jump in. The difference is who shoots and where to spot the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rlarry

I hate to jump in. The difference is who shoots and where to spot the ball.

No, because either way (unsporting non-contact or intentional dead-ball contact), it's a technical foul.

[rlarry]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, because either way (unsporting non-contact or intentional dead-ball contact), it's a technical foul.

Thanks for the clarification

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rlarry

Thanks for the clarification

No problem. I do think I've figured out the crux of Nevada's point (I'm a bit slow sometimes.)

On a dead ball play where accidental contact is made, the contact is to be ignored. Picture a post-basket situation where A1 is on his way up the court, about to become wide open, when B1 inadvertently trips him. This happens before A2 has the ball at his disposal, so the ball is dead. By rule, the contact should be ignored because it's neither intentional nor flagrant. However, this "seems" unfair, because this accidental contact took away an open layup for A1.

I think a lot of people would call the personal foul, figuring the time was close enough to A2 having the ball at his disposal. I think by rule, though, it needs to be ignored.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No problem. I do think I've figured out the crux of Nevada's point (I'm a bit slow sometimes.)

On a dead ball play where accidental contact is made, the contact is to be ignored. Picture a post-basket situation where A1 is on his way up the court, about to become wide open, when B1 inadvertently trips him. This happens before A2 has the ball at his disposal, so the ball is dead. By rule, the contact should be ignored because it's neither intentional nor flagrant. However, this "seems" unfair, because this accidental contact took away an open layup for A1.

I think a lot of people would call the personal foul, figuring the time was close enough to A2 having the ball at his disposal. I think by rule, though, it needs to be ignored.

About to become wide open? I would be thinking very hard whether or not B1's actions were inadvertant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

About to become wide open? I would be thinking very hard whether or not B1's actions were inadvertant.

Agreed, but if B1 was backing up and not even looking at A1, who sees that no one from B is heading back on defense....

I'm only saying it's possible and conceivable, not that it's likely.

[JRutledge]

Peace

[Scrapper1]

JRut, That picture is absolutely inappropriate!! It's hysterically funny, absolutely true, and made me literally laugh out loud. So naturally, it has no place on this forum.

[Adam]

Stupid firewalls.