kick 'im while he's down
 

Adult men's "wreck" ball, NFHS rules. (I know, my first mistake is doing these games in the first place!)

B1 is face down on the floor at the feet of A1 after an unsuccessful dive for a loose ball. The play has moved on. A1 chooses to step over B1 to rejoin the play (rather than go around), and his foot inadvertantly contacts the head of B1.

Do you call an off-ball team control foul on A1 if

1) it is early in the game and there are no emotions yet,

2) it is the fourth quarter, A1 has four fouls, and he has given you attitude on every call.

I was in situation (2), and was torn between

- wanting to get rid of a player with attitude who just kicked an opponent in the head, and
- not wanting to disqualify a guy on a ticky tack contact.

I called the foul, and he added a T to his count on the way to the bench. He later called the league administrator, who luckily had attended the game and backed me up. The administrator did not really see the kick, but agreed with me on the T.

If it had been situation (1), I probably would have warned him and let it go.

What would you guys do?

The only way situation 2 matters, in my opinion, is that I'd be less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't make the call in an effort to dump him. I'd also be inclined, based on the level of contact and whether he got the benefit of the doubt, to call it intentional rather than common (or team control).

Also, pull the trigger sooner on the T if he's giving you attitude on every call. Personally, if he gave me attitude the first call, he gets a quick chat with me; one way actually. If he gives me attitude on the second call, he gets his first T. That's, at most, three calls with attitude and you don't have to worry about him.

And if the league administrator has to be there to back your Ts, I'd think twice about the league.

This was my thought, but I didn't think about going with an intentional.

Agreed. I should have addressed it sooner.

The phone call to the administrator and "backup" happened hours after the game. I didn't need any help at the time.

Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad ...
 

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

That's not what I meant, sorry. What I meant was, if the administrator won't have your back later unless he actually saw the play, then it's a problem. I'm not saying that's the case, but that was the impression I got from your post. IOW, if he hadn't been there, then the player's call may have worked somehow. Not sure that's the case, but....
I didn't mean to imply you somehow needed help on the court.

I doubt very much that the contact to the head was accidental, however nonchalant it might have appeared. He knew he was stepping over an opponent and where his feet would hit if he dragged them.

Frankly, I could see a T here for unsporting conduct: walking over someone is intimidation. I would have at least an INT for this.

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

Please Correct Me If I'm Wrong ...
 

Be careful here. It's live ball contact. Unsporting? Certainly. But it's still a live ball, and I don't believe that you can call a technical foul for live ball contact. Team control or intentional? No problem. Technical? I'm not so sure.

I believe he was referring to the act of just stepping over an opponent sans contact.

I Guess That You Had To Be There ...
 

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)

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 .

My main issue with this whole thing is...

Either way, you knew that A1 had four fouls. I never count fouls, for two reasons...
*it's the scorekeeper's job, not mine, and
*it can sway your view from being objective, much like it did here.

Let's look at the two options you present:
*"Wanting to get rid of a player:" Be careful. This is something you shouldn't want, but rather something you simply do when necessary.
*"Not wanting to disqualify a guy on ticky tack contact:" A player never gets disqualified on one foul (unless it's flagrant). It takes FIVE fouls, and whether the last one is hard or marginal is irrelevant. Even still, the fact that you knew he had four fouls played with your head.

I can't speak for the play itself, because I wasn't there. It's up to you whether A1 committed a foul, and you can't get involved with how many fouls one has at the time.

Makes sense.

I don't normally count fouls- I knew this guy had four because he had complained about every call. You are right that I would have been better not to know. In spite of that I did my best to call objectively, but his attitude did affect my decision that this was intimidation (and hence worked to his advantage), rather than purely incidental.

I agree with others here that perhaps it should have been either intentional or nothing.

Exactly. And if there's contact after the whistle, I have the option of ignoring it or calling a second T for dead ball contact. ;)

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.

Depends on who that player is.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

A splitting headache. :o

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?

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!

On The Job Training ...
 

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.

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.

I gots a judgment to make.:D

The judgment is between no call if I decide the foot contact was incidental contact that didn't disadvantage B1, or a personal foul of some kind(PC, intentional or flagrant), dependant on reading intent of A1 and severity of contact.

Note though that this play is completely different than what we've been discussing. In the OP and other plays discussed, the player on the floor has been nowhere near the ball/play when the contact on him occurred. Thus, a different calling philosophy has to be employed imo.

And that's exactly why I'd hesitate to call a common foul on a kick to a player on the floor if that player was nowhere near the play. I'd use the same calling criteria as used on the shove above---> incidental contact or intentional/flagrant foul.

I wasn't reading that the play was no where near the player. For some reason, I had all that activity happening under the basket, or B1 somehow within range of at least attempting to make a play.