Question @Drive to the Basket
 

When you are the T and a drive begins from your primary and the defender has his arm in the offensive players back all the way to the basket (offensive player seems to play through the contact) and then the defender makes questionable contact with the offensive player on the shot (offensive player misses shot):

(Obviously you had to have been there but:)

1. As a good official how do you properly officiate this play?

2. Do you let the hand check go and call the shooting foul on the questionable contact taking everything together?

"Questionable contact" here is contact you probably wouldn't put a whistle on if it occurred by itself (and not after riding the player down the lane).

3. Do you call the hand check before the shot?

4. Do you call nothing?

5. Does it matter that the score is tied with 10 seconds left in the game?


This play happened to me last weekend at a college camp...I called a foul on the shot. I felt good about calling a foul, but I don't feel 100% sure at what point I should have called the foul and which foul I should have went with. The hand check or "questionable contact" by themselves I probably would have passed on but taken together I like the call.

6. Can I even take both into consideration together??

So asking the forum.....so I can get better. Thx!

I think you're making too much of this. An "arm in the back" sounds like a foul to me. Get it when you see it, and don't worry that 3 steps later he starts his shooting motion.

If you wait, you're saying the arm in the back was incidental. In that case, call the shooting foul and ignore the incidental contact. Contact is not additive.

If you make the right call, the game situation is irrelevant IMO.

Why would you think this situation would matter on how you would make any call? If it's a foul, call it. If not, don't. Period.

Mark, I am of the philiosphy score and time is irrelevant and a foul is a foul but I've seen plays at the end of tied ball games that do not get a whistle on so I guess the game can be settled in OT. I just threw the question out there to get feedback...I know I'm not the only one who has ever seen a play like that...?

imho, contact falls into one of three catagories:

incidental
marginal
contact that warrants a foul

sounds to me like the initial contact you've described is either incidental or marginal (it certainly was not contact that warranted a foul). a good official should see the start, development, and finish of the play...THEN decide if you have a foul. the higher the level of play, the more i believe you need to hold your whistle before blowing (or not blowing).

at the NCAA level, John Adams has said if contact initiated by the defender interrupts the rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness (RSBQ) of the offensive player...it IS a foul. your description does not meet that standard.

as for the "questionable contact on the shot", i don't think i have a foul either (at least not as you've described).

mbyron is right - contact is not additive.

i am certainly NOT going to call a foul in the last :10 of a game if the contact is "questionable".

hope that helps...:)

Let the play develop and finish. If the offensive player is able to play through it and get to the point of the shot, why stop the play? The offensive player was able to get to the spot they desired with the defender left trailing the play. The offensive player was, since they were able to beat their opponent, not disadvantaged by the contact. Calling that foul takes 2 points away from the offensive team. It may even take 3 points away if the player continues to push during the shot (vs. the ball OOB)....a much better time to call it if it needs to be called.


If, on the other other hand, the contact slowed down the offensive player such that their opportunity to shoot was eliminated or made distinctly more difficult, that contact becomes a foul.

I try to anticipate what the offensive player/team really wants to do (score). If my whistle will prevent that, then it is not a good call.

Did your evaluators question you about this call?

This sure sounds like a hand check the entire way...call the foul when it happens and you will clean up the game for you and your partners. This is why hand checking has been a POE for so many years in NFHS...we don't call it. In NCAAW we used to let this play finish and call an And 1 if the shot was made...over the past few years we went back to calling it right away to clean up the game.

No offiicial questioned the call. When I discussed with the Lead he thought it was a good call since the defensive player "rode him" all the way down the lane.

Also to clear up another post, the defender had his hand on the the offensive player on the drive and when the offensive player left the floor for a layup the defender jumped from the side of A1 to make the questionable contact (I'm providing this info to show the defensive player wasn't really trailing the play).

Thanks for the feedback thus far!

Someone has inhabited Mark's keyboard. Did you miss the part about the game being tied? :eek:

This explanation is exactly what my mentor shared with me when I asked the same question a few weeks ago.

Furthermore, I was instructed to utilize the "push" signal a majority of the time that I see a "hand check". Mainly because, if I'm going to go get that "hand check" it had better be because the defender actually altered the speed and course of the ball handler...which is probably best described/explained as a "push".

This doesn't mean "hand checks" don't happen or aren't legit calls - just that they can be viewed as a weak call in many situations and make it even more difficult for a crew to "call it the same on both ends".

Behind or to the side....it doesn't really matter. It doesn't change the point of my post....did the contact negatively impact the offensive player's ability to make the play he wanted to make? If not, no foul. That doesn't necessarily mean that A1 doesn't have to work just a bit more to keep his advantageous position and complete the play.

In that situation, you're going to be able to call a T on the coach who doesn't "get" the call for his reaction, in which case you will keep having lane violations on free throw misses. Sheesh - isn't it obvious? :cool:

BTW - in the 3rd and 4th grade levels of our local rec league, we have ties all the time (usually something like 6-6 or 8-8) but we don't have overtimes. The game is just declared a tie. I think I might suggest making this an NF rule.

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.

Most of the time, I'll tell a player to "keep your hands off and move your feet" when defending above the FT line extended (not driving to the bucket) in the early going and this is where I will more than likely call a "hand check" if the player doesn't immediately drop the hands. It's the drive to the bucket where the odds of me using a "hand check" signal will give way to the "push" signal.

Probably not a good thing to do. Officials should refrain from coaching. Many coaches get upset when officials instruct their players.

Is hand checking a foul? Let me answer my own quesiton...yes...then we need to call it and usually they stop doing it. At times we are our own worst enemies.

Hmmmm....you never take the opportunity to have a little sidebar with a player during a game? I think taking a moment to talk with players about issues on the court and being approachable for players is a part of good game management. And, no, I'm not suggesting officials should have running conversations with one or multiple players in every contest.

Absolutely. And, I hear you...a foul is a foul is a foul.

Why are you telling players to "move your feet"?

I say no. Sounds like you properly ignored the hand in the back, if the player had beat his man and "played through the contact."

If I understand your description of the play correctly, the "questionable contact" did occur by itself. The other was over.

Sounds like a no call to me.

A1 has the ball in transition at the center jump circle, A3 & A4 are at the free throw line ahead of A1.

B1 is guarding A1. All other B players are still in the backcourt.

Seeing the advantage, A1 attempts to pass the ball to A3. During the pass, but before the ball has left A1's hand, B1 fouls A1 across the arm. The foul, while obvious, does nothing to change the speed or trajectory of the pass to A3. A3 has an uncontested layup with A4 there to clean up the action. The closest B player is 40 feet away.


"A foul is a foul is a foul" ?

No way........ Same Camron's response....

If it doen't affect the offensive player's advantage, then why would you take the advantage away?

Classic game stopper.

Calling it a foul when it wasn't a foul is part of the problem.

In the context of the subject at hand, I think most people would know what the heck I was talking about.

Would agree...no foul in this case.

Seriously? I think you know the answer.

Agreed...I'm passing on that one. No brainer.

(Yes, it's a foul - but would be poor GM to blow on that one.)

If it's a foul, why don't you blow the whistle? A good official never "passes" on a foul, especially in the name of "game management".

Or, is it really contact that never caused a disadvantage? If so, then it's not a foul, and there's nothing to call.

A subtle but important difference. In asdf's play, he said "B1 fouls A1 across the arm." Then the official needs to call it, because a foul occurred. If, however, the true meaning was "B1 contacted A1's arm, and the pass was not affected", then the contact was ruled incidental, a foul did not occur, and therefore there was nothing to call.

A foul is a foul, period. Contact, however can be incidental, or it can be a foul. If it's incidental contact, then there's no foul. Words, and their specific meanings, are important.

I agree. It would def have to be classified as "incidental" contact. And, we move on.

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. :D

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

As defined where?

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.

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?

Are you suggesting that displacement is not illegal personal contact?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good point....I agree.

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.

Those points may be valid, however, if in the end, the offensive player's ability to beat the defender and complete a play is not compromised, then why call a foul?

My partner called a hand check at the FT line this past weekend which took away an easy layup (player was in shooting motion just as partner raised fist and blew whistle). We discussed it....both agreed it was probably a situation we would want to pass on in the future....or at least show a more patient whistle.

Because, in the end, that's why it's been a consistent Point of Emphasis over the years, because the rules committee feels it does affect the play and it has not been called enough?

Yeah it affects the play...if you call it in this example. It takes 2 points away from the offensive team. :rolleyes: The defense may get a foul but a foul is often better than giving up a layup.

The hand check the committee is talking about in the POE is NOT the one where the dribbler has an open shot in front of them and a hand check would kill the drive. It is the one where it bumps/steers a player off of the line to an easy shot...which has often gone uncalled...or where the player has started the shooting motion and the hand check is pushing the shooter away from the basket. I don't believe POE wants us to call a foul that benefits the fouling team.

You call it when the defender makes a practice of it. Both players standing still, or moving slowly, not attacking. If you haven't called it at this point, and A1 makes his move and beats the defender, by all means let it go, whether the contact continues or not.

I respectfully disagree with the second sentence. The POE that I quoted has nothing to do with bumping or steering. It is talking about a defender placing a hand on the opponent and simply leaving it there.

If the defender is already beaten, then you're definitely going to let it go. But if the defender just leaves a hand on the ballhandler continuously as the offense tries to run a play, the POE seems to say that it should be a foul, even if the ballhandler might eventually go to the basket.

Not everyone went back to that....some even call a shooting foul regardless of the shot being missed or made...I am not mentioning names or anythong though.......;)

I don't think were really said anything different. I wasn't talking about "eventually"...but in progress...right now. If they're parking it there while the dribbler is moving around out top, I don't disagree with calling it.

Thanks for echoing my point.