The joys of my evening

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.

Like Jeff, all I can say is that the philosophy on higher level boys basketball is that if the player clearly got all ball going up we're going to allow some contact on the way down. This doesn't mean we're going to allow a player to land on top of another player, but I think the play in question doesn't put the offensive player at a disadvantage subsequent to the block. The ball's heading out of bounds clearly and immediately and the play dictates (to me, anyway) that this simply be called an out of bounds violation and we move on.

Others that I respect disagree with this. That's OK. JAR is the only one trying to bring another play into question. I can easily explain one over the other, but I'm not sure it's really necessary:

(1) The girl (and the first play wouldn't happen in a girls game) swung and missed. I think that JAR sarcastically compared this to a roughing the kicker call in football and I actually liked the comparison. Getting the ball clean does make a difference to me. It does make me weigh the contact differently - in context.

(2) The ball goes immediately out of bounds in the first play. That also matters, IMO. There's no way anyone can be put at a rebounding disadvantage by a little contact subsequent to the shot. And yes, at that level and even at a good HS boys level, that's a little contact. Again, I'd have to put it in context with everything else that's happening in a game. It's one helluva athletic play to go up and get that ball and I'm not going to take that away because the shooter gets bumped, loses his balance, and falls to the ground, *especially* when the ball is immediately directed out of bounds..

(3) It's expected that in high level boys/mens games that the contact meter be dialed down a bit, at least where I work. On a block like that (first play, other thread), nobody would blink an eye at the subsequent contact. Those that would reflexively call that a foul without at least weighing all the other factors probably call a lot more fouls than is expected at that level. Again, I have great respect for those who call that a foul, but at least they are weighing the block against the contact and determining that there's too much contact there. I can live with that -- officials can disagree on a play but one thing I'm never going to do as an official is try to compare one play to another and try to use an official's judgment or words on an IBB to trip him up, like JAR did.

(4) The Yahoo link is now broken for the original play, but it's here now: YouTube - HD - Sasha Pavlovic block on Sebastian Telfair vs. Timberwolves - 2/7/11