Foul on jump ball participant

[Back In The Saddle]

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..."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.....A player shall not intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is NOT a personal foul". 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.....

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.....A player shall not intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is NOT a personal foul". 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.....

Awwww. Does somebody need a hug?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.....A player shall not intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is NOT a personal foul". 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.....

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Oh, boolsh!t. You're not only saying that I'm incorrect; you're saying that the rule is incorrect.That rules citation simply says that you CAN call a contact technical foul during a dead ball. But you don't like that rule so let's ignore it. That's exactly why I refused to get involved in this stoopid conversation with you. All you're doing is complicating a simple damn call with your goofy personal rules interpretation.

Just another typical 10,000 word treatise composed of nuthin' but complete doo-doo. You're the king of obfuscation and bafflegab.

Lah me....

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just another typical 10,000 word treatise composed of nuthin' but complete doo-doo. You're the king of obfuscation and bafflegab.

Yeah, sure he is, but has anyone ever called him repuslive?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yeah, sure he is, but has anyone ever called him repuslive?

Is that really bad acne?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That rules citation simply says that you CAN call a contact technical foul during a dead ball.

Nope, I'm saying that an official cannot do as you say and make such a call on a CONTACT play because the official deems the action unsporting. That was your advice and it is wrong. Under these circumstances (dead ball contact) a technical foul can only be called if the officials judges that the contact meets the NFHS definition of intentional or flagrant. There can be no other reason.

So name call all you want. You're still wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You're still wrong.

And intellectually and philosophically, I still think that you're full of sh!t.

Continue the argument with yourself. You seem to be the only one around here that measures up to your lofty standards anyway.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, I'm saying that an official cannot do as you say and make such a call on a CONTACT play because the official deems the action unsporting.

Let's look at that rule again.

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.

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."

[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]

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.