kick 'im while he's down

[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.

[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 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 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.

[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?

[wanja]

Men's league. Step over instead of around. Foot contact to the head. I got a foul and intentional fits the bill. I would have no problem with a brief explanation to the offender of coach if needed.

2 considerations have not been mentioned. First, ignoring the contact would not help to set the tone that intimidation won't be tolerated. Allowing actions that could easily be avoided and have the intent or effect of intimidation can cause a disadvantage. A second consideration is escalation. In some leagues, ingnoring such contact is almost an invitation to retaliation, verbal or otherwise.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

A splitting headache.

[rsl]

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?

I think the mental disadvantage can be a factor. I've seen plenty of times when players use contact to get the opponent upset and throw off their game. I don't think the advantage/disadvantage has to be on the immediate play. If I don't make a call, then the player gets up and retaliates, and I call the second one- doesn't the original perpetrator get an advantage?

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Adult Wreck Leagues. There is really no good reason to do these games.... And you end up with 'help me' posts on the forum.

This play actually happened back in March. I only posted it now because I was sick of the "I'm 52 years old, and in all my years..." thread. I hope it worked!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 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.

I slightly disagree with this post. Thirty years ago, when I first started officiating, my high school assigner actually assigned mens recreation league games in a few towns in addition to assigning high school games. As an inexperienced official I had to learn game management skills real fast, on the job. I learned that hustling, giving my best effort, and officiating these games in a professional manner, as I would a high school game, helped me to manage certain situations. Of course, these techniques were supplemented with a few, well, maybe more than a few, well placed technical fouls, and ejections.

My local assigner no longer assigns mens recreation league games. I don't make myself available to work any mens recreation league games from various "mini" assigners, even though I have been asked to do so on many on occasions. But I'm still glad that I had those early challenging experiences. My high school games are a "piece of cake" compared to those mens recreation games. I honestly believe that those early experiences helped me to become a better high school official, especially in terms of game management.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rsl

If I don't make a call, then the player gets up and retaliates, and I call the second one- doesn't the original perpetrator get an advantage?

If we're still talking about the OP: The contact is inadvertent. This is a given.
So if it is inadvertent, and no advantage is gained, it is not a foul. Period.

Having stated all this, if the player gets up and retaliates, the content of the retaliation must be judged on its own merit as to whether a call is to be made or not. But the original play is over and should not factor into this call.