kick 'im while he's down

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rsl

... foot inadvertantly contacts the head of B1 ... kicked an opponent in the head ... the kick ...

Team control foul. Also. A wise man, on this Forum, once said, "Accidental isn't always incidental".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Team control foul. Also. A wise man, on this Forum, once said, "Accidental isn't always incidental".

Yeah, but in this case it really is incidental, isn't it? How is the guy on the floor put at a disadvantage?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rsl

... his foot inadvertantly contacts the head of B ... kicked an opponent in the head ... the kick ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Team control foul. Also. A wise man, on this Forum, once said, "Accidental isn't always incidental".

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yeah, but in this case it really is incidental, isn't it? How is the guy on the floor put at a disadvantage?

The only question in my mind goes back to the orignal post which describes the play as "inadvertant". If I ignore the two references to the contact being a "kick", then this "inadvertant" contact can certainly be ignored as incidental. If the official deemed that there was no intent to harm, or injure, and B simply got up and continued play, then this contact can be ignored.

The two references to this being a "kick" seem to make the case for some type of contact foul being called.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it" (Justice Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964)

[just another ref]

I would say this has to be either intentional or nothing. I cannot think of a basketball play committed against a player lying on the floor without the ball that would result in a common foul .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I would say this has to be either intentional or nothing. I cannot think of a basketball play committed against a player lying on the floor without the ball that would result in a common foul .

Makes sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How is the guy on the floor put at a disadvantage?

Perhaps the same advantage gained by the player who pushes an opponent during a successfuf field goal try. The rule says, essentially, "prevents the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements." I'd say getting kicked in the head qualifies as preventing a player from normal defensive movements.

I don't think it has to be inentional or nothing, common would work, too.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'd say getting kicked in the head qualifies as preventing a player from normal defensive movements

Depends on who that player is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps the same advantage gained by the player who pushes an opponent during a successful field goal try. The rule says, essentially, "prevents the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements." I'd say getting kicked in the head qualifies as preventing a player from normal defensive movements.

I don't think it has to be inentional or nothing, common would work, too.

Disagree. You're talking apples and oranges. If you call a foul during a try, you don't know if the ball is going in or not. You're calling illegal contact which might affect the play. If you saw a player kick another player lying on the floor during a try, would you call that a common foul?

What advantage is a player getting if he kicks a player well away from the play? None that I know of. And what's he preventing that player from doing? No matter whether the player was kicked or not, he still has to get up and get back in the play. I can't see where a kick prevents anything unless it incapacitates the player.

The act does fit both the criteria of an intentional foul or maybe even a flagrant foul depending on severity of contact, as decided by the calling official's judgment. Imo the calling official has 3 choices:
1) No foul- incidental contact.
2) Intentional foul- contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. Note that this definition also says that it doesn't have to be premediated and isn't based on the severity of the act.
3) Flagrant foul- violent contact.

As I said, straight judgment call but from the description given in the OP, I'd say that the most appropriate calls would be either a no-call or an intentional foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree. You're talking apples and oranges. If you call a foul during a try, you don't know if the ball is going in or not. You're calling illegal contact which might affect the play. If you saw a player kick another player lying on the floor during a try, would you call that a common foul?

Which is why, just as during a shot attempt, we wait to see the impact of the contact. Sometimes we call it simply based on the severity of the contact, or the distance of the displacement. Granted, displacement is easily considered to be preventing normal defensive or offensive movements. Then again...

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What advantage is a player getting if he kicks a player well away from the play? None that I know of. And what's he preventing that player from doing? No matter whether the player was kicked or not, he still has to get up and get back in the play. I can't see where a kick prevents anything unless it incapacitates the player.

The kick could easily knock a player off balance if his balance is precarious to begin with.

[Jurassic Referee]

Snaqs, if saw a player kick another player who was laying on the court out by the center line while a shot was in the air, would you really consider calling that as being your plain ol' common foul?

[26 Year Gap]

Adult Wreck Leagues. There is really no good reason to do these games. Money is not a good reason. The jerk-to-participant ratio is higher than at almost any other venue. It does not allow you to really work on your game. And you end up with 'help me' posts on the forum.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Snaqs, if saw a player kick another player who was laying on the court out by the center line while a shot was in the air, would you really consider calling that as being your plain ol' common foul?

Nope. Nor would I call a common foul if a player shoved his opponent at center court while a shot was in the air.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Snaqs, if saw a player kick another player who was laying on the court out by the center line while a shot was in the air, would you really consider calling that as being your plain ol' common foul?

But consider this:
1. B1 dives for a loose ball near center court and doesn't get it.
2. The ball squirts towards B's basket.
3. A1 picks it up and heads back towards his basket, which takes him past B1 who has not yet stood up.
4. A1 runs towards B1 and just as B1 begins his attempt to rise, A1's foot clips B1 on the head.
5. The force of the contact knocks B1 flat to the floor.

Watchagot?

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yeah, but in this case it really is incidental, isn't it? How is the guy on the floor put at a disadvantage?

The guy on the floor still has that space from floor to ceiling. It is no more incidental than if he had jumped over him while he was standing and his ankle tapped him on the head.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Anchor

The guy on the floor still has that space from floor to ceiling. It is no more incidental than if he had jumped over him while he was standing and his ankle tapped him on the head.

Your premise does not support your conclusion. "incidental" is only partially related to who has the rights to certain space. the player's entitlement to the space only tells you who is responsible for the contact. After that, we have to determine whether it's incidental or a foul.