Help with a rule.
 

I've been out here lurking for a few years. I know some of you can be quite hard on people that "should" know the answer to their own questions. So, please don't beat me up if I should know the answer to this.

A1 tries to make a pass to A2 but for some reason completely misses and throws the ball hard directly in the face of her defender B1. She didn't do it on purpose but it was excessive.

Can you call an intentional foul on A1? If not, do you call anything?

Thanks!

I wouldn't, if it really wasn't on purpose.

See 10.3.6B for guidance

No call since it wasn't on purpose. Had it been on purpose you could have given a T for unsporting conduct.

This is a play on. For an intentional foul during a live ball, contact is required. If you thought the player intentionally threw the ball at a players face, an unsporting technical foul could be called (a case for a flagrant technical foul could also be made).

What they said.

NLR, never be afraid to make a fool of yourself on an online message board, particularly when most of us are anonymous. It's far better to screw something up here than on the court.

Your question's been answered, so I'll just say welcome to the board from a former Jasper County resident.

You could not call a technical foul in this case since it is a live ball...only an intentional or flagrant foul....but since you say it was not on purpose, chalk it up as incidental.

You should rethink this. This would have to be a technical foul, possibly flagrant, if you call anything.

There are two types of fouls: personal (including intentional and flagrant) and technical (also including intentional and flagrant). Personal requires contact, so this would have to be technical.

This would be a flagrant personal foul. A flagrant technical foul would occur if the ball were dead and the player then threw the ball at the opponent.

It's not a personal foul. A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent. Hitting someone with a ball is NOT contact with that opponent. If you make this call, it's an unsporting NON-CONTAT technical foul. Flagrant would depends on the severity of the situation.

Stoopid people get beat up. There's nothing stoopid about you or your question. Welcome to the forum.

As Snaqs has already pointed out, that's completely wrong by rule. Throwing the ball at an opponent during a live ball is a non-physical contact unsporting act penalized under NFHS rule 4-19-5(b). It's no different than swearing at an opponent during a live ball. And NFHS rule 4-19-1 states that any personal foul while the ball is live has to involve illegal contact with an opponent. There was no physical contact ever made in the OP.

The same concept is used on a throw-in. The ball is live on a throw-in and if a defender reaches OOB to touch the ball, it's a technical foul by rule. If the defender reaches OOB and makes illegal physical contact with the thrower though, it would be an intentional personal foul by rule.

It's not a bad idea when someone tells you that you're wrong by rule to take a minute to actually open the rule book and check out the pertinent rule before disagreeing.

So, A1 is bringing the ball up the court (live ball) when a) A coach swears at you for not calling a foul on B1 b) A1 swears at you for not calling a foul c) B1 screams at you for not calling palming.

You're calling personal fouls here since the ball is live?

JR has given you the rule references.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

No....I think we were just disagreeing on what "contact" is. In this case I was considering the thrown ball as a "rough tactic" by an opponent (10.6.1) and as "contact", but I see your point as well.












'

Now I see where you were going.
Read case 10.3.6, noting that rule 10-3-6 covers unsporting acts.

No, we're not really disagreeing as to what contact is. i believe that any official even moderately rules cognizant knows what contact is and that that contact refers to physical contact. So actually we were telling you that you are complwetely wrong by rule

We're all (as in a whole bunch of us) pointing out to you that the specific statement you made the we couldn't call a technical foul because the ball was live is completely wrong by rule.

When you say you can "see our point", does that mean that you're still insisting that it has to be a personal foul of some kind because the ball was live even though you can NEVER have a personal foul without contact by rules definition? Or is that a very well disguised admission that you were completely wrong in your understanding of the rules? Just trying to clarify where you stand now.

JR:

A1 is holding a live ball. B1 has a LGP against A1 just short of contact. A1, while holding the ball, shoves B1 in the chest, and displaces B1. What say you?

MTD, Sr.

I say T. I know we've gone round and round with this one in the past.

Just to clarify, the difference between this and the OP is that in your play, the player is holding the ball the whole time whereas in the OP, the ball is thrown.

What made contact? The ball or A1?

No brainer by rule. Unsporting technical foul.

I say, even though the ball contacted him, since it was still in A1's hands, it is illegal offensive contact by A1. He didn't throw it, he held it and shoved it, fully controlling the contact. PC.....

And if a defender on a throw-in reaches through the plane and contacts the ball in the thrower's hands, using similar logic you'd also call a personal foul on the defender because the defender fully controlled the contact with the ball?

what's the difference with that and the situation where A1 deliberately throws the ball at B1's face? Are you saying using similar logic that should be a personal foul also because A1 controlled the contact?

In your example, the defender initiated the contact with the ball, and by rule that is a technical foul. Also, the way I read it, A1 didn't throw (but held, and that is a big difference) the ball, and he shoved B1 with the ball. I see that as a offensive push. I may be wrong (have been before), but I can't see me showing the big "T" sign and banging that as a technical. An easier (and correct sell, I think) call is the PC Push....Again, I may be wrong, but that is my take....open for instruction, as always....

In both situations, contact is made with the ball. While our instincts may tell us it makes a difference if the player is still holding it, the rules don't really give us that distinction.

Since, in the case of MTD's play, the least you would go is intentional anyway, the only differences are:
1. anyone can shoot.
2. spot of the throw-in.
3. the offender will have one T towards DQ.

No way you go with a PC here. Even if you want to call a personal foul, you need to go intentional or nothing.

Let me add this:
If the call is an intentional personal foul, then you should call a PC foul if the ball handler does the same thing inadvertently. I don't think anyone would even consider this. Would you call a foul on the defender who blocks a shot or pass and pushes the ball with such force that it knocks the ball handler to the floor?
The fact is the infraction is unsporting in nature.

I never said that a technical could not be called during a live ball.....I was referring only to a contact foul during a live ball.
I was assuming that throwing a ball at someone could be construed as "contact". I stand corrected.;)

What's the difference if the ball is the only thing that makes contact with an opponent if the ball is thrown or held? In both cases, isn't the only contact on the play being made by the ball, whether the ball was thrown or held? And we already know as per case book play 10.3.6SitB that a thrown ball making contact with an opponent's face is a technical foul for an unsporting act.

My instruction is to try and find a rule that will allow you to call a personal foul when there is no physical contact by the player committing that personal foul. The definition of a personal foul as per 4-19-1 is that it's illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live. In the play being discussed, the thrower never contacted his opponent; the ball did. And that holds true whether the ball is held or thrown.

To be fair, you didn't add that caveat (contact) in your initial post.

Well again, I am willing to learn. But question? When the dribbler uses his forearm to push the guard away, that is a PC. I still think the ball in is hand being used to push the guard away is the same as though it were his hand or arm, and constitutes illegal contact by the dribbler. A PC call.I grant you that the contact by the ball muddies the water, but (in your mind...see it...see it...) can you see yourself calling this push with the ball as a Technical foul? I sure can't...and the fact that he has used the ball to do the pushing doesn't make it a non-contact foul. Throwing it, yes....holding it and pushing, no.....Am I alone in this interpretation? If so, I repent and will change my views......Thanks for the good input.....

How can it be the same when in one situation the contact is with the forearm and in the other situation the contact is with the ball?

How do you explain the situation on a throw-in where a defender reaches over the plane of the line and (1) contacts the ball, or (2) contacts the player? Same concept during a live ball, isn't it? And the rules are consistent too. Contact with the thrower is a personal foul. Contact with the ball is a technical foul. And note the ball hasn't been thrown in that situation either; the thrower is still holding it.

The problem is that we can't think. We have to use the available rules. And I'm not aware of any rule extant that would allow any official to call a personal foul without the player being called for the foul making physical contact with some part of his body on the opponent that he fouled. If someone can cite me a rule instead of an opinion though to the contrary, I'm willing to learn also.

+1 I'm with you Bishop. 10-6-2: A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental in an attempt to play the ball.

This is often expressed in laymen's terms: Your hand on the ball is part of the ball. As far as I'm concerned, in this case the ball is part of the hand.

LOL! Not even close.

What if one offical calls it a PC, one calls it an unsporting T and the third calls it a block because the defender didn't have LGP?

BlargeT?

Fair enough, Snaqwells. My wife is an attorney, and I have been trained to be vague.:D

What does this mean?

10-6-1: A player shall not.....push an opponent by extending arm(s).............

That's exactly what happened here. This is not even close to anything under player technical.

So if a defender reaches over the plane and touches the ball in the thrower's hand during a throw-in, according to that logic it has to be a personal foul?

Is there a rule that says "A player shall not contact an opponent with his FACE unless such such contact by his FACE is only with his opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental in an attempt to play the ball." I can't remember seeing any rule like that. But hey, I'm only a layman. Us laymen can't figger out what a rule saying what a defender can legally do to an opponent holding the ball relates to what an opponent holding the ball can legally do to a defender. You are aware I hope that the red-highlighted "your" above refers to the offensive player's hand on the ball, not the defender's hand...or the defender's face on the ball.

Got it, JAR.

And thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

Nobody is talking about touching the ball, during a throw-in, or any other time. Nobody is talking about touching anybody in the face.

The ball rolls loose in the lane. A1 picks it up right in front of the rim. B1 bodies up, hands straight up, trying to prevent a shot attempt. As A1 comes up from the floor with the ball in both hands, he places the ball against B1's chest, gives him a subtle push, just enough to cause B1 to take a step back, then goes up and dunks.

The fact that he pushed using the ball in both hands, rather than extending only one hand and pushing with it, does not change the play. Conceivably, if the official is behind A1, it might be impossible to tell the difference.

And it goes right back to.....

Can you cite a rule that states you can have a personal foul without having any illegal contact with an opponent when the ball is live a la 4-19-1? Can you cite a rule or interp that states that contact with the ball is the same as contact with the body? And we already have a rule that states that contact with a thrown ball is a technical foul. Can you cite a rule or interp that states that rule doesn't apply to a ball being held by a player?

Still waiting for rules instead of opinions......

If A1 pushes off with the ball and the only contact is with the ball and you feel an unfair advantage was gained, by rule you have an unsporting non-contact foul by B1 as per rule 4-19-5(b). At no time did A1 make any physical contact with any of his body parts on B1.

Edited to say: JAR, go back and read my edited post #36 above and answer those questions re: hand part of the ball.

I'm talking about the ball touching somebody in the face. But I don't really care where the ball touches the defender. The fact is that it's the ball touching the defender that we're discussing, not the player holding the ball touching the defender with any part of his body. That never happened. Again, the fact is that the only contact on the defender is with the ball.

Clear on that now?

Can you cite one which says it isn't?



An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

Clearly, the play at hand involves none of these.

No rule specifies the contact must be "with a body part."

No, I'm not clear why you brought up the face.

1) Yup and I already have. Case book play 10.3.6SitB and rules 4-19-1 and 4-19-5(b).

2)Pushing a player with the ball to gain an unfair advantage is unfair, unethical, dishonorable and not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. And that's why I'd call it a "T". Clearly the play at hand involves all of those. Well, that and the fact that the rules won't let me call it a personal foul because there was no actual physical contact by the fouling player.

Holding the ball, giving a subtle push to the torso. Throwing the ball, striking the opponent in the face. Yep, exact same thing. Great comparison. :rolleyes:

But that exact same push with the bare hand is a common foul. :confused:

Actual physical contact is not a term which is mentioned, let alone defined, in anything you have cited.

I brought it up because you brought up physical contact by a defender on a player's hand. I'm still trying to figure out whatinthehell that has got to do with a player holding the ball hitting a defender with the ball without making physical contact at the same time. Maybe you can explain that sometime.

Unless you can cite some rules, JAR, I'm done. I'm tired of repeating myself and citing the same rules. I'll just file this one in JarLand. It can keep the non-existent blarges company. :)

If we have a double whistle on the above play, you call a T, and I call a PC, must we report both?

jar, let me ask this:
A1 tries to make a pass, but B1 gets his hand on the ball. A1's hand slips off, leaving B1 with the ball. The force being applied leads B1 to keep pushing against the ball, which is now pinned against A1's hip, knocking A1 to the floor.

PC foul?

I don't see it as a foul at all. Sounds like contact incidental to a legitimate play on the ball.

I happen to agree, but I'm not quite at my point yet.

Yet, what if B1 had slipped off the ball and pushed A1 to the floor due to the force and momentum from his play on the ball?

With An Iron Fist ...
 

Show me the videotape. Then I'll rule.

We're talking concepts here, Billy, there is no available tape.

I see your point, but I see this whole situation as totally different. If A1 originally has the ball, and B1 makes any play contacting only the ball, and in the process spikes A1 to the floor, I don't see a foul. If A1 has the ball, and uses it to deliberately contact the opponent, I see the ball as an extension of the hands and the result of the contact should be treated as such.

Check The Security Cameras, That's What They Always Do On Law and Order ...
 

Certainly an odd play, but in tens of thousands of games played each year, there has to be some tape. Everybody has a video camera these days, even if it's in a cell phone.

It's also not anywhere close to being a personal foul. ;)

Sure.

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live.

Illegal contact is addressed under 10-6, where nothing defines contact as touching an opponent with the ball. All articles address illegal personal contact.

So are you saying it's a no call?



What exactly is personal contact, and where is it defined?

Yes. If an opponent puts a ball in my chest, I'm going to grab it. Whop thinks any player is not going to try to do that?


You can read all about illegal contact and how it involves contact with parts of the body on an opponent in 10-6.

Let me know when you get to the part that says contacting an opponent with the ball is defined as contact. :D

The ball is not an extension of the hands, and quoting a rule that describes what's "incidental" (10-6-2) doesn't change that. The case play says it's a T (or nothing) when the ball is thrown at an opponent; and there's nothing in the rules, anywhere, that differentiates between a thrown ball and a held ball as far as this play is concerned.

My point is, if intentionally shoving an opponent with the ball is an intentional foul, then accidentally doing it should be a regular foul.

A1 has the ball, guarded by B1. He pivots to pass, and in the process swings the ball around and hits (with the ball only) B1 in the shoulder, knocking him to the floor (A1 is sufficiently larger than B1 that this is not an unlikely scenario). B1 was entitled to his spot, and contact was purely accidental. If B1 had been hit with A1's forearm, it would be an easy PC foul.

Are you calling this PC?

I agree that any player would try to do that, but in this case he didn't, so it's a moot point.


Right, all except 10-6-1 which does not specify which part made the contact.
.....shall not impede the progress of an opponent by extending the arm(s).....
The contact in this example is often with the hands, or in one particular case, the ball.

Obviously, this issue is not directly addressed in any of the books, so one must interpret the available rules. I guess that's what we're doing.

Has this come up before? I seem to remember a play, here or in real life, where the thrower-in used the ball to back the defender off the line.

I don't see why not.

Well then, our disagreement is fundamental.

While I don't have it at my disposal, I do seem to remember an interpretation that supports JAR's point.

Feel free to post it, if it exists.

I knew I'd dealt with this somewhere.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...push-ball.html

What's that prove except that you haven't learned a damn thing in the last 4 years? :D

On the contrary, I used to blindly accept everything you said.

Sorta

Sometimes


:D