Question @Drive to the Basket

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by asdf

How about if B1 in the course of trying to stop A1's pass to A3 knocks A1 to the floor, yet the pass is still on target? B1 displaced A1 which by definition, is a foul.....

You killing this?

If that isn't a classic example of incidental contact, I don't know what is.

Seriously, though, that is probably a HTBT type of play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

B1 displaced A1 which by definition, is a foul.....

As defined where?

[asdf]

Now, if B3, B4, and B5 are in the front court and A1 is knocked down, we are going to get a foul, thus demonstrating that a foul is not always a foul.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

How about if B1 in the course of trying to stop A1's pass to A3 knocks A1 to the floor, yet the pass is still on target? B1 displaced A1 which by definition, is a foul.....

You killing this?

I'm not commenting on a series of "what-if'" plays, I'm commenting on your specific usage of words. In your original question, you said B1 fouls A1 across the arm. Then, it's simple - blow the whistle because you determined a foul occured. But again, if you are simply envisioning a play where B1 contacts A1's arm during the pass, and the pass is not affected because A3 was able to score easily, then most of us would agree that the contact was incidental, and therefore a foul did not occur.

In your play you appear to use the term "foul" interchangeably with "contact", and that would be incorrect usage. That also causes a lot of misconceptions. We never "pass" on a foul; we do however, judge some contact to be incidental, and thus a foul has not occured. That's where the phrase "A foul is a foul" comes in - it does not mean the same contact should be ruled a foul every single time. It simply means we never "pass" on fouls, even though we may rule contact to be incidental, and thus no foul occured.

Can you understand the difference?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As defined where?

Are you suggesting that displacement is not illegal personal contact?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

Are you suggesting that displacement is not illegal personal contact?

Not necessarily. Not if no one is put at a disadvantage.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not commenting on a series of "what-if'" plays, I'm commenting on your specific usage of words. In your original question, you said B1 fouls A1 across the arm. Then, it's simple - blow the whistle because you determined a foul occured. But again, if you are simply envisioning a play where B1 contacts A1's arm during the pass, and the pass is not affected because A3 was able to score easily, then most of us would agree that the contact was incidental, and therefore a foul did not occur.

In your play you appear to use the term "foul" interchangeably with "contact", and that would be incorrect usage. That also causes a lot of misconceptions. We never "pass" on a foul; we do however, judge some contact to be incidental, and thus a foul has not occured. That's where the phrase "A foul is a foul" comes in - it does not mean the same contact should be ruled a foul every single time. It simply means we never "pass" on fouls, even though we may rule contact to be incidental, and thus no foul occured.

Can you understand the difference?

My examples of "what if's" are very likely to happen in a game.

The contact by B1 on A1 is exactly the same, the immdiate result (the pass) is the same, yet in one example A has a distinct advantage and in the other A has no advantage.

Pass on the foul in the former, but do not pass on the later.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

What? If it is a hand check signal a hand check. This is a great example why kids keep playing with their hands and not moving their feet. When I have a hand check I make sure everyone know I have one. I want to make sure the ball handler is not getting mugged, held, or re-routed by the defender. Call the handcheck...it is not a push...a push is a push. When I follow you two nights later and have the same team and I call the rule (hand checks) the way it is supposed to be called I am the one catching crap because you are doing your job correctly.

Actually, GWR, until a few years ago, there was no "Hand Check" signal. While the rules on contact were the same, we only had the choices of Push, Hold, Illegal use of Hands, or Block. The "Hand Check" was only added to give the official another angle for commnication.

Many possible fouls fit more than one foul type. The "Hand Check" foul is a fully redundant foul. If you think about it a bit, a "Hand Check" can ALWAYS be called at least one of the other types of fouls. If they have not pushed or held with the hand, it is probably not a hand check. It would also be illegal use of hands in nearly every case.

Even in your description above, you used the word "held". "re-routed" would be a push. "Mugged" would either be illegal hands, push, or hold.

So, it is not necessary to ever call it as a hand check since the action also always fits the definition of at least one other type of foul.

No coach/player is ever going to quibble over whether you call it a push or a hand check.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

My examples of "what if's" are very likely to happen in a game.

The contact by B1 on A1 is exactly the same, the immdiate result (the pass) is the same, yet in one example A has a distinct advantage and in the other A has no advantage.

You pass on the foul in the former, but do not pass on the later.

This is my whole point - the official does not pass on a foul. The official determines the contact to be incidental in one instance, but not incidental, and thus a foul, in another.

We are not disagreeing about the final result of each play. I am still trying to point out your usage of the terms, and the confusion it can cause. The definition of "foul" is specific - it is illegal contact. We all agree contact could be illegal in one situation, and the same contact be incidental in another. But we cannot determine the contact to be illegal in both cases, but call the foul in one and pass on the foul in another.

It's a subtle difference, but it is important in how you communicate with players and coaches.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by asdf

Now, if B3, B4, and B5 are in the front court and A1 is knocked down, we are going to get a foul, thus demonstrating that a foul is not always a foul.

Not always.

2-3 years ago, semi-fastbreak. A has 3 players involved (A5 going down the lane, A2 going to the corner and A1 with the ball out top). B has 3 defenders back...one on the ball hander, 2 in the paint to cover A5, no one on A2.

A1, the point guard, right in front of his team's bench, gets hammered as he passes the ball...ending up on the floor. The coach is a very good guy and rarely says much but starts to react to the fact that his player was knocked down. I was trail right by the coach. I indicate to the coach something like..."Look (while pointing to the corner), your shooter is wide open with the ball (as the shooter is releasing a 3-pointer)". He responds with something simple like "Oh" and smiled as the ball swished through the net.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is my whole point - the official does not pass on a foul. The official determines the contact to be incidental in one instance, but not incidental, and thus a foul, in another.

We are not disagreeing about the final result of each play. I am still trying to point out your usage of the terms, and the confusion it can cause. The definition of "foul" is specific - it is illegal contact. We all agree contact could be illegal in one situation, and the same contact be incidental in another. But we cannot determine the contact to be illegal in both cases, but call the foul in one and pass on the foul in another.

It's a subtle difference, but it is important in how you communicate with players and coaches.

I think that telling B's coach that the contact in the first scenario was incidental, may get you into trouble when you call a foul on B for the exact same contact in the second scenario.

I always advise that I am not taking that advantage away from the other team and if the table were turned, they'll get the same benefit.

That approach has worked well for me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

I think that telling B's coach that the contact in the first scenario was incidental, may get you into trouble when you call a foul on B for the exact same contact in the second scenario.

I always advise that I am not taking that advantage away from the other team and if the table were turned, they'll get the same benefit.

That approach has worked well for me.

I'm not worried about what the coach will say about two different scenarios. It may be the same contact, but it's obviously different plays, based on the fact you are ruling one to be incidental, and the other not.

Again, we agree on the basics that contact, based on different plays, can be a foul one time and incidental contact another. It's just that I've found there will be a lot less potential problems if we all use the proper terminology. We don't "pass on a foul", but rather "that contact was incidental", or "the contact did not cause a disadvantage" will get the same message across without having to explain a misconception.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not worried about what the coach will say about two different scenarios. It may be the same contact, but it's obviously different plays, based on the fact you are ruling one to be incidental, and the other not.

Again, we agree on the basics that contact, based on different plays, can be a foul one time and incidental contact another. It's just that I've found there will be a lot less potential problems if we all use the proper terminology. We don't "pass on a foul", but rather "that contact was incidental", or "the contact did not cause a disadvantage" will get the same message across without having to explain a misconception.

Good point....I agree.

[Scrapper1]

For what it's worth, from the '08-'09 POEs:

"Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player. . . continuously places a hand on the opposing player -- it is a foul."

The above is nearly verbatim from the '03-'04 POEs. Handchecking is not always a matter of advantage/disadvantage.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

For what it's worth, from the '08-'09 POEs:

"Regardless of where it happens on the floor, when a player. . . continuously places a hand on the opposing player -- it is a foul."

The above is nearly verbatim from the '03-'04 POEs. Handchecking is not always a matter of advantage/disadvantage.

The explanation for this which I have heard, and I think has merit, is that continuous contact is, in itself, a significant advantage. It lets the defender measure his opponent, helping him keep a uniform distance. It also uses the defender's sense of touch to supplement his sight in reacting to the offensive player's movement.