The Official Forum
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   PC or did the push cause it? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/56877-pc-did-push-cause.html)

Anchor Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw3018 (Post 657943)
Just to get your thoughts on a similar false double scenario: what if shooter A1 is going straight up and has defender B1 with LGP to his side. Defender B2 pushes A1 from the side opposite B1. Obvious foul on B2.

Now, the ball is still live and the push from B2 causes A1 to displace and fall on top of B1. What's your call?

IMO, there is no real difference between the OP and my scenario other than your judgement that in the OP the offensive player would have committed the PC regardless of the push...and in that case, the push really didn't put him at any disadvantage, did it?
If you actually felt that the push caused the PC crash you could easily treat that crash as incidental. In the scenario of the OP vid, there is nothing incidental about the PC crash. The defender probably fouled from behind. The PC was gonna happen with or without that help. Ball is live, call them both.

Without taking all judgment out of the game, we still got to remember that the pertinent tools we have to work with are live ball, dead ball.

jdw3018 Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biz (Post 658048)
When the dribbler makes his move it looks to me like the defender is going to stay on his right hip which would make me step to the middle of the floor to see the space between the players and let my L take the secondary defender for a possible block/charge. The primary defender slows down to try for the block from behind which appears to straight-line the T but how are we to anticipate that from the initial action?

If the primary defender stays on the right hip of the shooter and the T steps wide and toward the endline he gets straight-lined, the C can't see through the defender, and the L is blocked out by the secondary defender, and no one sees the potential contact between the primary defender and the shooter.

I actually like that the T stepped to the middle of the floor. I think this call should have been made by C or the L.
I agree 100%, and that's why I said in my first post that I liked the step to the middle of the court.

Nobody can have that angle but the T. C should have the open angle once the defender ends up behind the dribbler, and L should pick up the secondary defender. T stepped to a place that gave him a great angle to judge the contact when the defender was on the side.

jdw3018 Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 658006)
How can B1 have a legal guarding position to the side of A1? :confused:
A1's side is toward the basket.

That said, poor choice of words on my part. Just wanted to spur some discussion of when you would actually call both fouls. I agree they can happen. But it's important to be able to clearly demonstrate that a PC foul would have happened regardless and that a push still wasn't incidental if you want to call both.

Clark Kent Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:03pm
YouTube - Push and Charge GH game1 2010_02_03_09_37_15.avi

longer version

Clark Kent Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchor (Post 658077)
If you actually felt that the push caused the PC crash you could easily treat that crash as incidental. In the scenario of the OP vid, there is nothing incidental about the PC crash. The defender probably fouled from behind. The PC was gonna happen with or without that help. Ball is live, call them both.
You suggest both fouls be called? So we go double foul?

jdw3018 Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Kent (Post 658084)
You suggest both fouls be called? So we go double foul?
In that situation it would make most sense to go false double, though a case could also be made for simultaneous (approx. the same time).

The fouls weren't committed by opponents on each other, so double is out. I'd go false double. Shooter gets two throws for the foul in the act of shooting with the lane cleared, then B gets the ball for a throw-in from the spot nearest the PC foul.

deecee Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Kent (Post 658084)
You suggest both fouls be called? So we go double foul?
Whoever suggested double fouls -- PLEEEASE give me a break.

You are saying that you will charge O1 with a PC foul BECAUSE he was pushed by D1???

No way in h-e-double hockey sticks will that fly in a game I am officiating.

EITHER D1 pushes O1 OR O1 causes a PC foul. In this case its PC all the way as the defensive contact is negligeble and the PC was unavoidable as the offensive player clearly was bent on driving to the hoop.

Saying this could be a false double and maybe even simutaneous foul is great for discussion but in this case has no validity in the real world. In other words its fun to discuss but thats it.

Rich Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Kent (Post 658084)
You suggest both fouls be called? So we go double foul?
I think it's a horrible suggestion -- one that is best quickly forgotten.

jdw3018 Wed Feb 03, 2010 01:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 658092)
EITHER D1 pushes O1 OR O1 causes a PC foul. In this case its PC all the way as the defensive contact is negligeble and the PC was unavoidable as the offensive player clearly was bent on driving to the hoop.

Saying this could be a false double and maybe even simutaneous foul is great for discussion but in this case has no validity in the real world. In other words its fun to discuss but thats it.
I happen to agree it would be a rare case to call both.

Perhaps a better case for calling it is when the player who has begun his shot is illegally contacted on the arm, but then runs over a player with legal position. The first contact obviously is illegal, but also in no way caused the second contact.

You pass on the PC?

Adam Wed Feb 03, 2010 01:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw3018 (Post 658113)
I happen to agree it would be a rare case to call both.

Perhaps a better case for calling it is when the player who has begun his shot is illegally contacted on the arm, but then runs over a player with legal position. The first contact obviously is illegal, but also in no way caused the second contact.

You pass on the PC?
I might be inclined to pass on the shooting foul here, as the try would have been negated by the PC, so there was no real advantage gained by the contact.

jdw3018 Wed Feb 03, 2010 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 658118)
I might be inclined to pass on the shooting foul here, as the try would have been negated by the PC, so there was no real advantage gained by the contact.
Good answer, and my first inclination as well.

I'm just curious how people would be inclined.

Raymond Wed Feb 03, 2010 01:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Kent (Post 658069)
I ended up ringing up W11 with a push. Although hard to tell on the video (and maybe I was wrong) but I felt he had a hand on B10's backside. Wrong or right I still don't know, because I agree from the video I don't think the contact on the back is substantial, but in the moment and from my perspective/angle as T I felt like it was.

C was coming into make a call and was going PC on it, but did a great job of holding off.

Thanks for the opinions.

Rich, I'll see if I can add a few more seconds to it for ya. :)
IMO, if you're going with the push then you need to come in strong verbalizing "PUSH" so that everyone in the gym knows you have a foul that caused the subsequent collision.

It's advice I've received from a couple of big dawgs. If you are coming in with a call that no one is expecting, then come in strong and leave no doubt what you have.

In your play, everyone expecting a PC or a block. The push call is not expected. And in this, I'm not saying your call is wrong, I'm just saying it is one of those occasions where the calling official does need to "sell" (for lack of a better word) his call.

slow whistle Wed Feb 03, 2010 02:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 658118)
I might be inclined to pass on the shooting foul here, as the try would have been negated by the PC, so there was no real advantage gained by the contact.
This is essentially casebook play 4.19.9 Sit A, you are passing on the first foul?

Adam Wed Feb 03, 2010 02:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow whistle (Post 658156)
This is essentially casebook play 4.19.9 Sit A, you are passing on the first foul?
I'd be inclined to do that, yep.

Can you ask why? Of course you can.

Because I don't want to be the first guy in my association to ever make that call. Yes, the rule is there and allows for the call. If the shooting foul was such that ignoring it would cause problems (particuarly hard rake across the arms), I'd make it. But if it's just a run of the mill slap on the arms, I'm not sure I'd make that call.

Guess I'm a coward.

Jurassic Referee Wed Feb 03, 2010 03:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw3018 (Post 658080)
A1's side is toward the basket.
So?:confused:

The defender still wasn't in A1's path and thus didn't have a LGP.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16am.
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1