Broken Nose

Mark - Is the "reaching in" foul located in rule 11 also?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Based upon your description, you made the proper call.
Contact during a LIVE ball is never a technical foul. The coach is 100% wrong. You have nothing to fear from a report to the state office. File an injury report if you need to. I bet that you are glad that you called a foul on the play even though it was in your partner's area. I wonder what his reaction was when he learned that the player was hit hard enough to break her nose and he didn't believe that a foul was warranted. (Of course, an injury isn't always conclusive proof that something illegal occurred, but it does make for an easy whistle.)

Your choices were: common foul = PC foul, intentional personal foul, flagrant personal foul.

Remember that the guard is not required to give the ball handler any time or distance as long as the guard does not make contact. If the offensive player violates the guard's vertical space and places that player at a disadvantage, a foul on the offensive player should be called.

There are times when contact will occur due to the normal pivoting movement and not be a foul as it will not place any player at a disadvantage. In that case, it should be deemed incidental contact.

Just don't fail to protect the defender who has a right to that space in the same manner as you always hear about protecting the shooter.

Nevada, as usual, is right and very thoroughly covers the situation. To expand a little further in part I find that contact with the head or face is a no call more often than one might think. In the first place, it is hard to see. Why? Because the official's focus is on the ball, the hands, the feet, basically anywhere but the face. In the second place, often the contact is a result of the defender literally sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, resulting in either a small amount of incidental contact or a blocking foul.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Mark - Is the "reaching in" foul located in rule 11 also?

Yes, just after the part about inbounding the ball at mid-court following a timeout in the last two minutes of the game and players having to stand in the backcourt during the shooting of a technical foul.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Yes, just after the part about inbounding the ball at mid-court following a timeout in the last two minutes of the game and players having to stand in the backcourt during the shooting of a technical foul.

I bet you & your partners always have a good laugh!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In the second place, often the contact is a result of the defender literally sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, resulting in either a small amount of incidental contact or a blocking foul.

Could you please expound upon that part?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Could you please expound upon that part?

I disagree with it. Usually, it seems this contact is because the rebounder is sticking his elbows where he has no right to have them.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Could you please expound upon that part?

A1 pushes the ball in transition, dribbling with his right hand. B1 pursues on his left. A1 does a quick start-stop move. B1 is fooled, and lunges across A1's body in an ill-conceived attempt at a steal. (that's right, he reached in)
There is considerable contact, an easy blocking call on B1, who emerges rubbing his nose and frowning. B1's mother stands up. "What? He got hit in the nose!"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A1 pushes the ball in transition, dribbling with his right hand. B1 pursues on his left. A1 does a quick start-stop move. B1 is fooled, and lunges across A1's body in an ill-conceived attempt at a steal. (that's right, he reached in)
There is considerable contact, an easy blocking call on B1, who emerges rubbing his nose and frowning. B1's mother stands up. "What? He got hit in the nose!"

I'll give you that one, but that's not the more common situation.

Usually what I see is B1 playing close defense, A1 puts his elbows up and pivots, knocking B1 in the nose with his elbow. PC.

[cubsfanllw]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Yeah, it is. It's part of the same rule that says you can have a 3 second call while the ball is still in the backcourt, that a player that reaches over another player without contact to get the ball has committed an over-the-back foul and that backcourt violations can occur without team control. It's called NF rule 11. All coaches have it in their rulebook. Unfortunately, no officials do.

and "reaching in"

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree with it. Usually, it seems this contact is because the rebounder is sticking his elbows where he has no right to have them.

I may have overstated the point. When it's a rebounder, I agree with you. Let's try it this way. If a player is standing vertically as he should, he'll be okay, of course. But when a player assumes an improper posture, defensively speaking he sometimes leads with his chin, and may easily create the contact with it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I may have overstated the point. When it's a rebounder, I agree with you. Let's try it this way. If a player is standing vertically as he should, he'll be okay, of course. But when a player assumes an improper posture, defensively speaking he sometimes leads with his chin, and may easily create the contact with it.

I'll give you that one.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

It's called NF rule 11. All coaches have it in their rulebook. Unfortunately, no officials do.

I just discovered that the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. Many, not all, of us Catholics don't spend a lot of time reading our longer Bible, and don't usually bring it to Sunday mass; while many, not all, Protestants often carry their shorter Bible with them, especially to Sunday services. Coaches have the longer Catholic Rulebook, and use it like many, not all, Catholics, seldom; and officials have the shorter Protestant Rulebook, and use it like many, not all, Protestants, often.

Oh. I almost forgot. Happy Chanukkah. Just have the Rulebook, not the Casebook.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just discovered that the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. Many, not all, of us Catholics don't spend a lot of time reading our longer Bible, and don't usually bring it to Sunday mass; while many, not all, Protestants often carry their shorter Bible with them, especially to Sunday services. Coaches have the longer Catholic Rulebook, and use it like many, not all, Catholics, seldom; and officials have the shorter Protestant Rulebook, and use it like many, not all, Protestants, often.

Oh. I almost forgot. Happy Chanukkah. They just have the Rulebook, not the Casebook.

So Mark has an apocryphal rule book? Hmmmmm...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So Mark has an apocryphal rule book? Hmmmmm...

I'm impressed.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So Mark has an apocryphal rule book? Hmmmmm...

Oh, you mean a deuterocanonical rule book.