Pushing foul or traveling violation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Bart Tyson]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
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.

[ChuckElias]

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

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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!

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
--Bob Knight--"where'd he get him?"
--Mark T.--"on the ball"!
--Bob Knight--CENSORED!

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

[Bart Tyson]

JR, this is tooo funny.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
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.

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.

[BktBallRef]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.

[egausch]

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