Ball Foul?

[wanja]

First year official brought this situation from an middle school game. 6 foot + player blocks shot of much smaller player and drives the player to the floor touching only the ball. Official determined it (drive to the floor) was deliberate and called a shooting foul. My initial reaction (oops) was okay. By rule, the action would need to merit a technical foul (unsportsmanlike conduct) and that is the only infraction that applies. I'll get back the the official.

[Nevadaref]

It is perfectly legal to push the ball while an opponent is holding it. Doesn't matter how hard. The official really messed this one up.

[Adam]

While I agree with Nevada in this case, without having seen this play it's really hard to tell. There's been a debate recently about whether a player can foul another (personal foul) by striking him with the ball.
The rule says live ball contact with an opponent; it doesn't exclude the possibility of using the ball. Usually, this debate occurs in the context of an offensive player pushing the defender with the ball rather than his hands. Some (I believe Nevada is in this group) will say the obvious intent is direct contact between players, others don't think this is so obvious.

Your situation is a bit different, however. Frankly, if your friend thinks the defender did it on purpose, he has to choose between an intentional personal or an unsporting technical; depending on whether you think purposeful ball on player contact can be considered a personal foul. I don't think, however, that a shooting foul is an option here.

Intentional or technical, IMO, but not a standard personal shooting foul.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Frankly, if your friend thinks the defender did it on purpose, he has to choose between an intentional personal or an unsporting technical; depending on whether you think purposeful ball on player contact can be considered a personal foul.

Acted upon intent to use the ball to drive an opponent to the floor qualifies as unsporting behavior. This was the judgment of the official and I would need to be there to offer a different judgment based on his description. I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about an intentional personal foul since no direct contact occurred. Its either a technical or nothing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wanja

Acted upon intent to use the ball to drive an opponent to the floor qualifies as unsporting behavior. This was the judgment of the official and I would need to be there to offer a different judgment based on his description. I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about an intentional personal file since no direct contact occurred. Its either a technical or nothing.

Ok, let's apply the standard play:
A1 with the ball gets fed up with B1 being "too close" and uses the ball to shove him away. Call? I'm not arguing here. Although I lean towards allowing for a personal foul here, I'm not married to the idea.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Your situation is a bit different, however. Frankly, if your friend thinks the defender did it on purpose, he has to choose between an intentional personal or an unsporting technical; depending on whether you think purposeful ball on player contact can be considered a personal foul.

Purposely contacting the ball is what every player has a right to do. Another option is no foul at all. I would never penalize a defender who does not have control of the ball, but by being able to get his hand or hands on the ball is able to exhibit enough force to knock the opponent to the floor. That play is perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ok, let's apply the standard play:
A1 with the ball gets fed up with B1 being "too close" and uses the ball to shove him away. Call? I'm not arguing here. Although I lean towards allowing for a personal foul here, I'm not married to the idea.

This play is different from the one above because the offense player has control of the ball and is using it to strike the opponent. I deem that action a technical foul.

PS Yes, I am in the camp which believes that a personal foul can only result from physical contact between the bodies of two opposing players.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ok, let's apply the standard play:
A1 with the ball gets fed up with B1 being "too close" and uses the ball to shove him away. Call? I'm not arguing here. Although I lean towards allowing for a personal foul here, I'm not married to the idea.

Your example is a good one. More likely to occur and easier to determine if the action extended beyond a legitimate basketball play. My problem is getting past the definition of a personal foul that includes "illegal contact with a player".

It seems much cleaner to read contact plainly as direct player to player contact. Consider the case where a player pushes a teammate into an opponent. In that case and the case you posed, I would go with an unsporting technical. I could be convinced otherwise if there was a case or rules clarification that supported a broader definition.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would never penalize a defender who does not have control of the ball, but by being able to get his hand or hands on the ball is able to exhibit enough force to knock the opponent to the floor. That play is perfectly legal.

Never could get you in trouble here. Consider a scenario where a defender gets a hand on the ball, directs it to the chest of an opponent, pushes him back a few feet and then pushes him to the floor using the ball. You better have something. An extreme case to make the point that there is room for judgment and the judgment of the official in the initial case should not be summarily dismissed.

[TimTaylor]

I agree it's a HTBT situation.

That said, looking at the OP, it would appear that the defender and shooter both maintained continuous contact with the ball. Based on that, I'm thinking the correct call would be a held ball and you go to the AP arrow for possession. The ball becomes dead and anything that occurs thereafter is ignored by rule unless it is judged intentional or flagrant. Any resulting foul would be a T, as the ball is dead.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

it would appear that the defender and shooter both maintained continuous contact with the ball. Based on that, I'm thinking the correct call would be a held ball and you go to the AP arrow for possession. The ball becomes dead and anything that occurs thereafter is ignored by rule unless it is judged intentional or flagrant. Any resulting foul would be a T, as the ball is dead.

Agreed. An early jump ball call either prevents or clarifies subsequent illegal action by the defender. Thanks. I'll pass that insight along.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by wanja

Agreed. An early jump ball call either prevents or clarifies subsequent illegal action by the defender.

My point exactly. There's a lot to be said for having a "patient whistle" in many situations, but there are also those situations you need to jump right on top of, and I think this is one of them....especially at this level.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by wanja

Never could get you in trouble here. Consider a scenario where a defender gets a hand on the ball, directs it to the chest of an opponent, pushes him back a few feet and then pushes him to the floor using the ball. You better have something. An extreme case to make the point that there is room for judgment and the judgment of the official in the initial case should not be summarily dismissed.

Maybe traveling or a held ball, but I will NEVER have a foul on that.

How's that for ya?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Frankly, if your friend thinks the defender did it on purpose, he has to choose between an intentional personal or an unsporting technical; depending on whether you think purposeful ball on player contact can be considered a personal foul.

Of course, the defender did it on purpose. His purpose was to block the shot. Most if not all blocked shots are done on purpose methinks.

Blocking a shot is a basketball play. Shoving a player with the ball isn't; it's an unsporting act.

You can't penalize strength and size. I agree with Tim re: should be a held ball imo also and not a foul.

[Mark Padgett]

Since your partner called a shooting foul and the only contact was with the ball, apparently the ball got fouled. You should put the ball on the free throw line and let it shoot itself. Of course, you'll probably have a 10 second violation.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Since your partner called a shooting foul and the only contact was with the ball, apparently the ball got fouled. You should put the ball on the free throw line and let it shoot itself. Of course, you'll probably have a 10 second violation.

OK, I'm calling your bluff. Whose ball then, wise guy?