kick 'im while he's down

[rsl]

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?

[Adam]

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.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The only way situation 2 matters, in my opinion, is that I'd be less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, pull the trigger sooner on the T if he's giving you attitude on every call.

Agreed. I should have addressed it sooner.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

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

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I could see a T here for unsporting conduct: walking over someone is intimidation.

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.

[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.