Foul on jump ball participant

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Mark- Because it's a dead ball? Don't we have the option to ignore that contact?

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

[BillyMac]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Just want to chime in on this part with a reminder that, had the foul been before the R released the ball, it would have to be an intentional (or, perhaps, flagrant) technical foul.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Mark- Because it's a dead ball? Don't we have the option to ignore that contact?

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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.