There was a post on McGriff's Board that might provide interesting discussion:

Play: A1 is holding the ball firmly with both hands. B1 pushes on the ball (makes no contact with A1). The push is so hard A1 topples over backwards to the floor still holding the ball.


My take on the play is as follows:

If, in the official's judgement, if B1 placed his hands on the ball in such a manner that both players were know holding the ball in a manner that would create a held ball situation, then you a held ball had occured. But, if all B1 did was push the ball hard enough to displace A1, then B1 is guilty of a pushing foul. My reasoning for calling a foul on B1 is no different than if A1 had taken the ball and pushed B1 out of the way with the ball. That would be a player control foul by A1. I just do not see how this can be a traveling violation and not a pushing foul by B1.

I will say this, that a couple of postings after mine said that it could not be a foul by B1.

Any and all opinions are appreciated.

I actually brought this point up a year or two ago. A1 with ball turns and bumps B1 with ball. A1 goes down, or B1 goes down. I have seen my partner call a foul but i'm not sure why they called the foul.

Who was called for the foul? I have discussed the play where A1 uses the ball to push B1 out of the way, and everybody agreed that this is a player control foul by A1. But the play I posted with B1 doing the pushing of the ball while A1 is holding it is a new one for me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

I have discussed the play where A1 uses the ball to push B1 out of the way, and everybody agreed that this is a player control foul by A1.

I'm not sure I agree that it's a PC foul. No one has ever been able to explain adequately to me how you can have a personal foul without contact. Maybe there's a logical reason for the PC call, but I haven't heard it yet.

Chuck

Mark,I'll give you the same reply here that I gave over on Mcgriffs.You will have one heckuva time trying to sell a foul call on a defender who got "all ball" with no player contact.If the player with the ball is in the air and the same thing happens,are you going to call a jump ball or a foul?By your logic,it has to be a foul.I can just hear the following:
--Bob Knight--"where'd he get him?"
--Mark T.--"on the ball"!
--Bob Knight--CENSORED!
:D

Good one, JR!
... now, quit swearin'.
mick

JR, this is tooo funny. :)

Here's my two sheckels worth. NF 10.6.1 is the section on contact and it defines what contact fouls are. The first sentence does state that a player can be called for a foul for using "rough tactics." That's the only part of the section that might support a foul call if B1 pushes on the ball hard enough to make A1 fall backwards. The rest of the section specifically mentions that contact must be made with an opponent, which is not what happens when you push the ball (and don't give me that "hand is part of the ball stuff - it's specifically addressed in the section and it doesn't state the opposite, i.e.: the ball is part of the hand).

In fact the first part of the first sentence also specifically mentions that contact must be made with an opponent to cause a foul (another section deals with non-contact fouls) and the part about "rough tactics" is at the end of that same sentence following a semi-colon, so you could also make an opposite case that the "rough tactics" phrase also pertains to contact with an opponent.

Having said all that, I guess I feel this way: if B1 legitimately pushes on the ball to try to block a shot or pass, it's no foul. If he hits or punches the ball with such force that it's obvious the act was intended to knock A1 down (and this would be a very difficult thing to assess), then you could have a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct (non-contact foul during a live ball). Yeah, I know the second part is a real stretch, and the act would have to be incredibly overt and I would probably never call it - in fact, I haven't in 22 years.

That's why I think that I would always call the travel, unless you had a clean block first, in which case it would be a held ball.

There - that's clear as mud.

I'm with Chuck, JR, and Mark. I don't see how you can have a personal foul without one opponent contacting the other. Contacting the ball is not contacting the opponent.

I'm with Tony, et al. As to Mark De's original sitch, I'm calling it a held ball on the basis of "dual control". And I'm callin' it before A1 falls over. That's in my fantasy game, where I make no mistakes, and both coaches bow at my feet when the game is over!

You go girl!! :D

Mark, you mention two things that are relevant to this play: rough tactics and the act was intended to knock down his opponent.

This play is easier to make a decision if we actually see it rather than read a description of the play. My gut feeling the first time I read the play was that B1 was intending to knock down A1, because if B1 was capable of putting his hands on the ball, he should have had the wherewithall to make an attempt to grab at the ball and continue going after the ball.

I agree that we cannot use the hand is part of the ball definition, but in the play described your mention of rough tactics and the intention to knock down his opponent would fit the description of a pushing foul.

Mark, I still have trouble with how a player can commit a personal foul without personal contact.

I've got the same problem on this play,Tony.I thought Mick had a good take on the other board.He said you're basically punishing the defender for making a good play.I also thought that Mark Padgett made a good point about possibly calling a T,IF the official thought the act was unsportsmanlike.That's supported in R10-3-8.The language there says "commit an unsporting foul",but the key words are "includes,but NOT limited to".I think it's written that way so we have the leeway to deal with the oddball cases that rarely come up-the ones you have to deal with to keep control of a game.I had one years ago where I thought a player deliberately shoved the ball in another player's face.The defender ended up with a broken nose.I called it a flagrant T and unloaded him.I think that's a case where you have to do something,or you could have major problems.This case isn't like that,IMO.

Isn't this situation similar to A1 shooting a J and when in the air B1 gorilla slams and gets all ball and A1 hangs on. A1 and the ball crash to the floor. It's a held ball. No contact, no foul. That said, B1 is clearly playing the ball here. If in the original sitch, in the judgement of the officials, B1 is not playing the ball, then I could see making a case for unsportsmanlike. I don't think forcibly, pushing the ball back into the offensive player is playing the ball.
EG

EG,
In the original play, A1 is not shooting or attempting to pass... merely holding. Thus the difference.
mick

The other definition of "held ball" is: "Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness." I'd say that applies in this case!

Fine.
 

Jewel,
yU.P., I heard of that rule also, and I call it that way. Thanks for pointing that out.

I envisioned a player batting the stationary ball short of "firmly on the ball" more like a batt, a momentary push... from the side, from the top, I don't care which direction. If you wanna call a held ball, it's your call.
I have a travel. I will not award the offense the advantage you offer for being off-balance, uncoordinated, or merely weak in any level 5th grade to CCA.
mick

Re: Fine.
 

I see what you're saying. I can't agree. What would a more athletic player do instead of falling over, when he/she is shoved? Stepping back would be travelling, what else is there?

Re: Fine.
 

Your last paragraph is a good description of possible scenarios of what happened. I think that we have to see the play to make a judgement about the play. The scenario that interest me is the one where B1 just pushes on the ball hard enough to knock over A1. B1 does not bat at the ball nor does he put his hands on the ball in a manner that would meet the definition of a held ball.

Re: Re: Fine.
 

Well, for starters, how about not moving the pivot foot, not falling down, not offering the ball?

Re: Re: Fine.
 

Mark T.,
Well, I am thinking that if the defender's contact with the ball is anything longer than a quick strike, then we have to call a held ball.
If the defender has enough time to "power push" the ball handler off balance and to the floor, let's jump it, cuz the ball handler cannot/will not release it.
I just can't call a foul on the defender; unless, I already have the held ball and he continues pushing... then we have something. ;)
mick

Here's another similar case(maybe).
 

Most refs will wait for one good tug before calling a held ball, when both A1 and B1 have their hands on it. What if B1 purposely lets go or even pushes rather than pulls in an attempt to have A1 pull and fall backwards? I can't see a personel foul here, but maybe unsportmanlike or a travel on A1. Off the top, I would tend toward the unsportsmanlike because B1 is not directly playing for possesion of the ball.
EG

You think a T should be called if B1 "purposely" let's go of the ball?

Re: Re: Re: Fine.
 

Mark T.,
Well, I am thinking that if the defender's contact with the ball is anything longer than a quick strike, then we have to call a held ball.
If the defender has enough time to "power push" the ball handler off balance and to the floor, let's jump it, cuz the ball handler cannot/will not release it.
I just can't call a foul on the defender; unless, I already have the held ball and he continues pushing... then we have something. ;)
mick [/B][/QUOTE]I agree fully with mick.I think he's covered all the possible scenarios with logical answers.The one thing that you can't have is a personal foul on the defender.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fine.
 

I agree fully with mick.I think he's covered all the possible scenarios with logical answers.The one thing that you can't have is a personal foul on the defender. [/B][/QUOTE]


While I agree that Mick has done a wonderful job of covering all possible scenarios with logical (not common sense) answers. A defender's "power push" is more that an impact load striking the ball and less than getting enough of a grip on the ball to cause a held ball. I still think this is one of those plays that a picture is worth one thousand words or I know what I will call when I see it.

But I was correct about one thing, it has generated a lot of discussion.

No, I think I spoke to far off the top of my head. Pushing, however, in this case, even if slight, should be considered. Is it good defense to try and imbalance the other guy, by deliberately pushing the ball toward the player? or Is this unsportmanslike behavior and outside the norms of playing the ball? What are the norms, are there any? Maybe it's simplier to say that a defender can make any play he or she wants at the ball. Pull it, push it, slap it, poke it, grab it, etc. Then it's a travel on A1 if he falls. Or maybe a defender's play at the ball should be limited toward either, directly gaining possesion (like pulling it away), directly causing the other player to loose possesion(batting it away), or causing a held ball(grabbing and holding it). Pushing would not fit here. I don't think the rules directly address this.
Personnally, I feel that pushing the ball like this, enough to cause A1 to fall, is not within the spirit of the game and is unsportsmanlike behavior, but calling a T or push does seem unbalanced or incorrect. That said, I would go with a held ball.
EG

Mark T.De.
I think you can have have foul on B1. I know you said A1 was not shooting. But I do remember reading (NFHS) about a clean blocked shot attempt that is followed thru with such force that A1 is forced to the floor. The take down warrents a foul on B1. Why can't you use the same thinking if B1 forces A1 to the floor. After all, there should be more control by both players if A1 is just standing still with the ball versus a shot attempt.

On the otherhand, as it has already been mentioned, being there or a picture is worth 1k words.

Whoa!Can you find the rule reference for us that you read that says you can call a foul on a defender who makes a clean block-even if it forces the shooter to the floor?I don't think I am familiar with this one.

I'll add my vote. I see only 2 ways for this to happen.
If B1 makes a strong move for the ball which causes A1
to fall over then I have a held ball. In this highly
likely scenario B1 will have his hand(s) on the ball long
enough for me to judge it held. The other case is when B1
only makes "instantaneous" contact, as in a right cross or a
front jump kick. Obviously this is a different animal and
someone's probably going to get ejected. IMO.

Well said old chap!

Jurassic Ref, sorry it took so long to reply. I've been really busy.

NFHS case book, page 27, INTENTIONAL FOUL, 4.19.3 SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind & the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor & out of bounds. RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11)

I only mentioned this case as a possible course of action not the only one. Of course excessive force is necessary in this case. This happens to be one of those sitch's that stick out to me the same reason you questioned my response.

Ridge Wiz,the key words in the the casebook play you cited above are "subsequent contact".This play refers to a defender putting a hand on the ball,and THEN making further contact somewhere else on the shooter besides the ball to cause the foul.In other words,the foul isn't for putting a hand on the ball.It's for the OTHER contact on the shooter AFTER the hand was on the ball.I think you may have misread this play to think that the foul was called solely for the contact on the ball.Contact on the ball only is not a foul.