Foul on jump ball participant
 

Opening tap. After 'R' releases the ball A1 holds B1 down by the shoulder to keep him from jumping. Do you have a common foul or an intentional?

Whatever you decide you can tell it's gonna be a very, very long night.

I have intentional btw

Absolutely intentional foul

Let's see, the ball is live when it leaves the Rs hands & holding a player who isn't trying for a basket during live action is a common foul.

Although I'm sure a case can be made for an intentional foul if the hold negates an obvious advantageous position for B1.

Guess one would have to be there to determine...

I'm more concerned about what to do next in both situations.

Common foul - award the ball to Team B OOB closest to the spot of the foul & point the arrow to Team A when it's at the throwers disposal?

Intentional foul - B1 shoots 2 FTs & the ball to Team B OOB closest to the spot of the foul & point the arrow to Team A when it's at the FTers disposal? or at throwers disposal?

I missed the foul. B1 complained to me about it and I believe him cuz A1 is a sneaky dude.

It was a long game though...B1 was begging and whining for calls all night. Then those 2 ended up jawing at each other with 0.9 left in the game and we had to separate them.

After the game I was letting my partner (he's not on the HS board) know that A1 should know better b/c he is a buddy of mine and an official. Then my partner lets me know that B1 is a retired E-8 from the military and used to be his supervisor.

Go figure, the 2 guys with connections to the officials would be the ones to put sh!t in the game. :mad:

Oh an adults game? Wreck? You really should've said so. :eek:

I've got nothing & if B1 complains I hit him with my off-season catch phrase "it's a mans game, play ball"!

No offense ladies.

Good question about the arrow. I need to look that one up. I'm going to guess that it's when it's at the FT'er's disposal as something could happen in the interim (like a T on Team B) and we never make it to their throw-in (NFHS rules)....edit: guess my guess would be wrong per Nevada's post below.

NFHS 4-3-3
Alternating-possession control is established and the initial direction of the
possession arrow is set toward the opponent's basket when:

. . . The ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower after:
a. A violation during or following the jump before a player secures control.
b. The free throws for a noncommon foul.
c. A common foul before the bonus free throw is in effect.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Ch1town
...

Intentional foul - B1 shoots 2 FTs & the ball to Team B OOB closest to the spot of the foul & point the arrow to Team A when it's at the FTers disposal? or at throwers disposal?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You had a 50-50 shot at it, but missed. ;)

Yeah, I saw that...I already edited my post above. :o

Good looking out Nevadaref! I can always count on you to put the rules out there in b&w.

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.

I don't know. If I see this at any level, I'm calling it intentional. I see no reason to let this go in an adult league game, especially since they have a greater propensity to get out of hand.

It's an intentional hold without any attempt to play the ball. Easy call, IMO.

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

Snaqwells- I see your point too but I really don't mind them getting out of hand at that level.
3 Ts = ballgame ;) My partner & I are now on "break" or even better going home early.

You're welcome, and FYI if this situation were to occur when the bonus was in effect, such as at the start of an extra period with both teams having committed 7 team fouls in the second half, and the foul was deemed a common foul, then the following rule applies.

4-3-2
. . . The ball is placed at the disposal of the free thrower after a common foul when the bonus free throw is in effect.

So one has to consider both whether the bonus is in effect at this point in the game as well as if FTs are for a common foul or a noncommon foul in order to reach the proper conclusion.

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.

I realized after I posted this that the free throw violation is for the foot only. I guess I need to go review my rules as regards breaking the various planes.

Yeah, there does seem to be a blind spot in the rules in this fairly narrow case. I would be shocked if the NFHS ever said it was intentional. The rule about ignoring dead ball fouls unless they are intentional or flagrant seems squarely aimed at play that continues on following a live ball becoming dead, not before the ball becomes live. How often do we really see an example like the ones we're theorizing about?

Oh, boolsh!t. You're not only saying that I'm incorrect; you're saying that the <b>rule</b> 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....:rolleyes:

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

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.

Is that really bad acne?

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.

Is that really the best you can do?

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case as Padgett refuses to share his meds. :(

I'm guessing you're better off (but not less annoying) without Padgett's meds.

I would attempt to answer that but I'm not sure what play you and Nevada are theorizing. I lost track.

It's the play where the kid with the repulsive acne gets smacked in the bafflegab, but during a dead ball. ;)

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."

You mean he gave him the business? eeeeew!

No, you're thinking football.

At least it wasn't diving or swimming.

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?

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.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/lol.gif
I actually have partners who do that!

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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?

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.

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.

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. :)

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w...gay_midget.jpg

Peace

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. :D

Stupid firewalls.

:D

That's a great pic! btw...if we remove the mustache & beard looks quite a bit like my friend Chuck Elias.

Too many teeth.....but if you have him committing an unspeakable, obscene act on the rubber ducky, I could maybe see the resemblance.

There <b>IS</b> a certain schoolteacher out on the left coast though....... Seattle fan....pisses both coaches and assignors off......

I dunno... skin doesn't seem thin enough on the guy in the picture

Thanks a lot, Jeff. Now I have to clean Diet Pepsi off my monitor, my keyboard, my mouse, and the wall!

I'm home from work now (left early due to weather in Denver). I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything.