The joys of my evening

[walter]

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.

Think of this. Hard, fast drive to the basket from the wing by A1 (small guard). B1 (big body center) comes straight down the lane line toward the endline on the same side and jumps to block the shot. B1 legally beats A1 to the basket and while in the air cleanly blocks the ball and the two bodies come together and A1 ends up falling to the floor and the ball goes straight out of bounds. You have two bodies, basically getting to the same spot at practically the same time, contact which can be hard given the speed, and the ball going out of bounds. To me this is a no call even with possibly severe contact.

Another is drive by A1 one to the basket at B1. B1 jumps up vertically and blocks the ball and is contacted by A1 (also airborne) with such force that B1 is bent over the top of A1 and A1 ends up on the ground. To me, this is either a no call or possibly a player control foul on A1 even though A1 got the brunt of the contact.

In both situations, to me, B1 did nothing illegal and the shooter ended up on the ground after contact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by walter

1)Think of this. Hard, fast drive to the basket from the wing by A1 (small guard). B1 (big body center) comes straight down the lane line toward the endline on the same side and jumps to block the shot. B1 legally beats A1 to the basket and while in the air cleanly blocks the ball and the two bodies come together and A1 ends up falling to the floor and the ball goes straight out of bounds. You have two bodies, basically getting to the same spot at practically the same time, contact which can be hard given the speed, and the ball going out of bounds. To me this is a no call even with possibly severe contact.

2) Another is drive by A1 one to the basket at B1. B1 jumps up vertically and blocks the ball and is contacted by A1 (also airborne) with such force that B1 is bent over the top of A1 and A1 ends up on the ground. To me, this is either a no call or possibly a player control foul on A1 even though A1 got the brunt of the contact.

1) To me that's foul on B1. They're not playing football out there. You've got a defender that never came close to having LGP running over a shooter. Whether the defender got the ball or not while doing so is completely irrelevant by rule. And if there was severe contact, I'd think about maybe calling an intentional or flagrant foul also. If B1 really had beat A1 to the basket, then you wouldn't have 2 bodies getting to the same spot at the same time.

2) And this call depends on whether the defender had a LGP too. If so, I agree. HTBT.

[walter]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) To me that's foul on B1. They're not playing football out there. You've got a defender that never came close to having LGP running over a shooter. Whether the defender got the ball or not while doing so is completely irrelevant by rule. And if there was severe contact, I'd think about maybe calling an intentional or flagrant foul also. If B1 really had beat A1 to the basket, then you wouldn't have 2 bodies getting to the same spot at the same time.

2) And this call depends on whether the defender had a LGP too. If so, I agree. HTBT.

I can see your point on 1 and both, in reality, would be htbt plays.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

YouTube - HD - Sasha Pavlovic block on Sebastian Telfair vs. Timberwolves - 2/7/11

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

They're not playing football out there..

High school varsity officials around here would rule this a foul on the defender. The only way that some would pass on this would be if the defender, and the shooter, were moving more, or less, parallel to each other and contact occurred. But just because it's a foul in my little corner of Connecticut, doesn't mean that it's a foul all over the rest of the officiating world.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by walter

I can see your point on 1 and both, in reality, would be htbt plays.

Maybe, but it would take a lot more than what I have read to call a foul here. BTW, football we can have fouls for a lot less contact depending on the play. We can have no contact in baseball and have a violation of the rules. I never get that reference.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

I've been following these two discussions very intently, only because I want to discern the difference between the thinking on what is considered incidental contact vs. a foul.

I certainly understand the same contact can be incidental in one situation, while a foul in another. I have had conversations with coaches and players who have asked for a foul when the shooter's arm is contacted, but the shot has left the hand. They seem to feel that contact on the shooter's arm is foul no matter what, while we all agree the unfair advantage is when the contact affects the shot with the ball still in the hand, and there is no advantage once the ball has left the hand. I also understand incidental contact can be "severe", and the level of contact alone does not have a direct bearing on whether to call a foul.

But I'm still trying to understand the concept of how the bar for determining incidental contact gets changed in certain circumstances. Rich, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but since it's your thread, I'll ask you - how does the sitch you mentioned in this thread differ from the play in the video in the other thread? In both cases, the shooter was knocked to the floor. Now, I understand they are 2 different plays: girls vs. boys, wild swing and miss vs. body contact after clean block, etc.

But my questions come from some of the comments made about why they are so different. You say the no-call in the video is "expected" in a higher-level boys game. You also mentioned the allowed level of contact in the video would be greater because the ball went directly OOB, so there was no advantage in the shooter being knocked to the floor. Why shouldn't the same standard of protecting the shooter apply in both plays? Would your call/no-call be different if your play in this thread happened during a higher-level boys game, and the play in the video was during a girls game? Would the call in this thread be different if the ball was blocked OOB before the same contact? Would your no-call in the video play be any different if the ball stayed in-bounds after the block?

As to the comment about what is "expected" at a certain level - who gets to make that determination? Are you saying your calls/no-calls will be based on what coaches, players and fans expect? Granted, I understand you need to do what your "bosses" expect, and that could be your assignors, or even the AD's, if you contract directly with the schools. I know no one wants to be "That Guy", who makes calls outside the expected norm. But let me give you an example - I have worked with many a veteran partner who has made the "expected" call of a travel when the player is fumbling the ball while taking a couple of steps. No one ever complains when this incorrect call is made, and if the call is not made, coaches, players and fans all react negatively. (The carry violation on the high dribble is another example.) Should I start making this incorrect call, because it's "expected"? Or should I continue to make the correct call, and not worry about what the coaches and players expect? If this example isn't the same as the "expected" no-call in the video block, why is it different?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've been following these two discussions very intently, only because I want to discern the difference between the thinking on what is considered incidental contact vs. a foul.

And all I can give you is my personal opinion fwiw.

There is nothing anywhere in the rules that I am aware of that states legal contact by a defender on the ball has any relation at all as to whether illegal contact has also been made by the defender on the shooter. Quite simply, by rule it doesn`t matter whether a shot was blocked or not when it comes to determining whether a foul should or shouldn`t be called. The only thing that matters is for us to determine whether there was illegal contact on the shooter before, during or after that legal block. And it is always a judgment call as to what is legal, incidental contact and what is a foul (illegal contact). There`s different criteria used to judge the legality of a defender`s actions...LGP, verticality, etc. But if a defender jumps into or under an airborne shooter, then the defender is causing the contact and that should be called. And if that contact is severe, well, we`ve been told to protect the airborne shooter and we`ve also been told to get rid of the illegal physicality we`ve been letting go.

JMO.

[JRutledge]

There is nothing in the rules that says a player knocked to the floor is a foul either. If a small guard goes directly at a big and muscular 7 foot player, the taller and bigger player is not likely going to get knocked to the floor. So I really will never understand why that is the standard for calling a foul. Of course if the defender does something illegal I have no problem calling a foul. I think officials find more reasons not to call fouls than reasons to call a foul. But being knocked to the floor is not my criteria. And we also call things in the game that are "expected" or "usual" as well as things that are illegal. Which is why for many years we would not call "hand checking" of a player could play through the contact. And I have yet to see anyone call a PC foul near the basket when a defender is contacted and they do not go flying out of the way. I see this play or how it is called the same way.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've been following these two discussions very intently, only because I want to discern the difference between the thinking on what is considered incidental contact vs. a foul.

I certainly understand the same contact can be incidental in one situation, while a foul in another. I have had conversations with coaches and players who have asked for a foul when the shooter's arm is contacted, but the shot has left the hand. They seem to feel that contact on the shooter's arm is foul no matter what, while we all agree the unfair advantage is when the contact affects the shot with the ball still in the hand, and there is no advantage once the ball has left the hand. I also understand incidental contact can be "severe", and the level of contact alone does not have a direct bearing on whether to call a foul.

But I'm still trying to understand the concept of how the bar for determining incidental contact gets changed in certain circumstances. Rich, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but since it's your thread, I'll ask you - how does the sitch you mentioned in this thread differ from the play in the video in the other thread? In both cases, the shooter was knocked to the floor. Now, I understand they are 2 different plays: girls vs. boys, wild swing and miss vs. body contact after clean block, etc.

But my questions come from some of the comments made about why they are so different. You say the no-call in the video is "expected" in a higher-level boys game. You also mentioned the allowed level of contact in the video would be greater because the ball went directly OOB, so there was no advantage in the shooter being knocked to the floor. Why shouldn't the same standard of protecting the shooter apply in both plays? Would your call/no-call be different if your play in this thread happened during a higher-level boys game, and the play in the video was during a girls game? Would the call in this thread be different if the ball was blocked OOB before the same contact? Would your no-call in the video play be any different if the ball stayed in-bounds after the block?

As to the comment about what is "expected" at a certain level - who gets to make that determination? Are you saying your calls/no-calls will be based on what coaches, players and fans expect? Granted, I understand you need to do what your "bosses" expect, and that could be your assignors, or even the AD's, if you contract directly with the schools. I know no one wants to be "That Guy", who makes calls outside the expected norm. But let me give you an example - I have worked with many a veteran partner who has made the "expected" call of a travel when the player is fumbling the ball while taking a couple of steps. No one ever complains when this incorrect call is made, and if the call is not made, coaches, players and fans all react negatively. (The carry violation on the high dribble is another example.) Should I start making this incorrect call, because it's "expected"? Or should I continue to make the correct call, and not worry about what the coaches and players expect? If this example isn't the same as the "expected" no-call in the video block, why is it different?

I'll get to this, but it may not be today. I have a bunch of work to do the next 2 days and I have games tonight, tomorrow, and Thursday nights and a meeting on Wednesday night. Hard to believe it's March and I'm still this busy, but my activity level will fall off a cliff soon.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by walter

Think of this. Hard, fast drive to the basket from the wing by A1 (small guard). B1 (big body center) comes straight down the lane line toward the endline on the same side and jumps to block the shot. B1 legally beats A1 to the basket and while in the air cleanly blocks the ball and the two bodies come together and A1 ends up falling to the floor and the ball goes straight out of bounds. You have two bodies, basically getting to the same spot at practically the same time, contact which can be hard given the speed, and the ball going out of bounds. To me this is a no call even with possibly severe contact.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

it would take a lot more than what I have read to call a foul here.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course if the defender does something illegal I have no problem calling a foul. I

The contact in the above play as described is, by definition, illegal. If it is the custom in your area to ignore this contact (foul) under certain circumstances, (ball "cleanly" blocked out of bounds) so long as it is acceptable to all parties involved, I suppose this is fine. But it is difficult to support the position that this is not, by rule, a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is nothing in the rules that says a player knocked to the floor is a foul either.

You may want to check out NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB then. It's pretty explicit.

4.19.3SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. as A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds.
RULING: An intentional foul should be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball.

The FED is telling us:
1) it doesn't matter if the defender got a hand on the ball
2) it's always a judgment call but if the shooter is whacked to the floor and OOB, not only should it be a foul but it should be an intentional foul for excessive contact.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'll get to this, but it may not be today. I have a bunch of work to do the next 2 days and I have games tonight, tomorrow, and Thursday nights and a meeting on Wednesday night. Hard to believe it's March and I'm still this busy, but my activity level will fall off a cliff soon.

Take your time; I wasn't expecting a quick answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The contact in the above play as described is, by definition, illegal. If it is the custom in your area to ignore this contact (foul) under certain circumstances, (ball "cleanly" blocked out of bounds) so long as it is acceptable to all parties involved, I suppose this is fine. But it is difficult to support the position that this is not, by rule, a foul.

This is not about a rule, this is about judgment. A blocked shot is going to be very hard to expect player(s) fall and if the falling is the only part that say should be a foul, you need to show me the rule that says so. You will not find one.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You may want to check out NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB then. It's pretty explicit.

4.19.3SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. as A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds.
RULING: An intentional foul should be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball.

The FED is telling us:
1) it doesn't matter if the defender got a hand on the ball
2) it's always a judgment call but if the shooter is whacked to the floor and OOB, not only should it be a foul but it should be an intentional foul for excessive contact.

That assumes that all contact puts the player to the floor. A player going to the basket will fall and does all the time with contact. This is why it is a judgment call. Good for the NF, but that does not mean it it going to change how I and others view this play.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That assumes that all contact puts the player to the floor.

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

No one has argued about a small guard bouncing off a large post player who has LGP, or a player running into well-set screen and getting creamed. We all agree incidental contact can be severe, and we all agree a player going to the floor does not mean a foul occurred.

You bring up handchecking in a previous post, and that actually is a point I wanted to make. You mentioned that handchecking was not called for years, with the expectation that as long as the player can "play through it", it was not going to be called a foul. The NFHS has clearly stated in recent POE's that officials have not been calling handchecking as often as they should. Perhaps in higher level boys' games, the expectation was/is that handchecking is a cheap foul and should not be called, where the rules committee has repeatedly said it needs to be called more often. Isn't this the same issue we have with the blocked shot and contact afterwards? There is an "expectation" in certain games that certain calls are made or not made, even though they may be in direct contradiction to the rules.

Maybe you're not understanding my questions - I'm not here necessarily to say one way is right and the other wrong. I know there are gray areas. But how do you tell a smaller school official what would be a foul in their game would not be a foul in a large-school game? Why is that? Yes, the "expectation" is different, but should we as officials give in to that expectation? If so, should we also give in to the expectation that a high dribble is somehow a violation? Everyone wants is called, and no one complains when it is. Same thing?