The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 12:44pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Fail-Safe ...

Looks like Jurassic Referee figured out how to use the boldface key. Great. Just what we need. Hopefully he won't figure out how to use the "blow up the world" key.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 01:07pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 01:25pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.
And that's still misleading. By rule, you can have either an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. When someone tells me a foul was a "common" technical foul or a "run-of-the-mill" technical foul. I naturally assume that the foul isn't intentional or flagrant in nature. And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.

If you just stick to the normal rules language, you don't run into confusion like this.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 01:32pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
So Pure, It Floats ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.
Wow. A higher percentage than Ivory Soap. I didn't think that was mathematically possible.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 01:40pm.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 01:41pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.
This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 02:14pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.
Got it. A "common player technical foul" is an intentional technical foul.

Is a common player personal foul always an intentional personal foul too, according to the same logic?
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 13, 2011, 07:57pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
While I agree, Randy's first post has some flaws, I think we can be a little generous here and interpret "common technical foul" to mean "run-of-the-mill technical foul", as opposed to a flagrant.

Jurassic is obviously right that it can't be both common and technical, by Rule 4 standards; but I honestly don't think that's what Randy was trying to say.
Perhaps, but his "preachy" exortation to stick to the rules rather than rely on the interpretations of others opens him up to the criticisms that JR leveled. If you're going to use your first post to preach, you ought to begin by using correct rules language.

His misleading comments about dead ball contact are, of course, a whole other issue.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 03:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 89
Clarification/Correction/More Preaching

First off, let me say that I should have melded the first and second sentences of my second-to-last paragraph into a coherent whole. It appears that a number of you focused on my first sentence, and ignored my second.

Secondly, you all sure seem to spend a lot of time arguing about what seems small to me, and not much time discussing what caused me to jump in on NFR’s post in the first place, namely, his apparent reliance on what others casually tell him rather than on a rigorous use of the books to advance himself, and the dilemma he describes surrounding pushing after a made goal. There I go preaching, again. By the way, I'm just a second-year guy. I don't know jack--that's why I want citations from you guys (I was a varsity player, and have played recreationally for thirty years). I perused this forum when I started officiating 18 months ago, and decided it was more like a Facebook party than a serious officials' forum. I'm taking a second look. My preachiness is just my style. Believe me, I'm not arrogant or pompous, just dumb.

JR: In my use of “common”, I was casually making a distinction between penalties among the technical fouls in play with NFR’s play situations--uncommon ones being fighting/flagrant ones, because they include disqualification and are far less “commonly” called than intentionals. Scrapper and JAR got it, but I agree with you and Snaq, “common player technical” is not generally understood to make the distinction I was intending--thus the problem and confusion I generated. That was a useless distinction to try to make in the first place, perhaps. Your attempt to analogize my use of “common” in regard to a player technical foul with that of its use in a common foul “logically” entailing intentionality fails, however. Common foul is properly defined, 4-19-2. Common player technical foul has no proper definition.

I have no idea how YOU were defining “common” when you said that 4-19-1’s subnote precludes a “common player technical by rule” and leaves only intentional or flagrant ones to choose from. Given NFR’s play situations, which technicals are even in play other than intentional and flagrant ones, never mind which of them are you calling “common”? You say you were interpreting my use of “common” as “a run-of-the-mill technical foul”. What is a run-of-the-mill technical foul, or, more precisely, which ones are they? At least I included “player” technical foul, which narrowed it a bit, and I put it in the context of NFR’s play situations. Which technicals are you calling “common” that 4-19-1’s subnote precludes AND which are also not intentional or flagrant???

I disagree with your position on 10-3-8. NFR mentions no retaliation to any of the pushes, but 4-18 does not require retaliation in order for it to be fighting. 4-18 only requires that the act be judged combative. 4-18-1 and 2 are mere examples of the fighting 4-18 defines. 4-18 clearly states that articles 1 and 2 are not exhaustive. What’s combative is a judgment call, similar to what CB 10-3-6 advises in regard to a possible unsporting foul. I was trying to cover all of the possibilities NFR should consider, and “combative” is a definite possibility for a push that commences after a goal. I’ve seen it many times. I’m not going to wait for retaliation to rule it combative, and therefore fighting. I’d rather blow, and hopefully prevent the retaliation. Waiting for retaliation to call it fighting is absurd, particularly when you consider that if the initial act leads to retaliation (fighting), the initial push is then also deemed fighting, CB 4-18-2.

As for 4-19-1’s subnote, I view it as making explicit what is elsewhere in the book referred to as “incidental” contact, i.e., it provides us a specific example of incidental contact (4-27). Like I said in my response to NFR, though I did not say it eloquently, he can ignore the dead-ball pushing if he finds it to be incidental, such as if the offender did not realize the basket was made. 4-19-1’s subnote tells us to regard what would otherwise be a common foul as incidental. However, how often is a push on a rebound not intentional? How often is it not intentional when it doesn’t begin until after the goal? That’s the fine line NFR’s question raises, obviously. A late push like that is intentional virtually every time, in my experience. Do I call it often? Like APG, no, but I do what I have to to put a stop to it immediately. It all depends on my judgment of the players’ maturity, and their responsiveness to my commands. I don’t know where NFR is at in Oregon, but knowing metropolitan Oregon varsity teams from working their games at summer camps, what NFR is witnessing may just be what they in Oregon regard as “incidental”. Their coaches tell me, with varying regret, it’s “just part of the game” for them, which is a whole different subject, entirely.

Rich: I thought you made a great point about when the ball again becomes live, but when live, it’s just a question of standard live-ball judgment, isn’t it? No big dilemma, there.

The only thing I said about officials ignoring dead-ball contact is that it is acceptable, providing it is deemed incidental contact, meaning it is not deemed intentional or flagrant. Re-read what I said with all the relevant context this time. [Again, I should have blended my first two sentences together, and made my position more coherent.] The question at hand is what to do with the contact NFR is witnessing. We don’t know what it is. We can’t know the offenders’ states of mind, nor can NFR communicate to us every relevant detail such that we can accurately judge for ourselves. We have to consider all the possibilities in order to provide him with a comprehensive answer. You seem to argue as if I did not allow for the possible no-call if judged incidental, as though you read my first sentence, and my first sentence, only, of that particular paragraph. I clearly allowed for ignoring the contact. If you had criticized my poor writing skills, and said that I should have blended my first and second sentences together such that they worked as one, I would wholeheartedly have agreed with you.

Ignats: I assume by “airborn” you mean the ball is still live. Why would you tell yourself to ignore a push during a live ball? Isn’t that what “Points of Emphasis” #1 is all about? A foul is a foul, otherwise, the "game" slowly slips away from us all.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 06:35am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
!) Believe me, I'm not arrogant or pompous, just dumb.

2)Ignats: I assume by “airborn” you mean the ball is still live. Why would you tell yourself to ignore a push during a live ball? Isn’t that what “Points of Emphasis” #1 is all about? A foul is a foul, otherwise, the "game" slowly slips away from us all.
1) No, no, no......
You're arrogant, pompous and dumb.

2) And that pretty much sums up your 2 years of officiating experience and your vast rec league playing resume. I'll let someone else tell you why you still don't understand the basics i.e. 4-19-1NOTE.

As for the rest of your post....are you serious?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 12:13pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
1) No, no, no......
You're arrogant, pompous and dumb.

2) And that pretty much sums up your 2 years of officiating experience and your vast rec league playing resume. I'll let someone else tell you why you still don't understand the basics i.e. 4-19-1NOTE.

As for the rest of your post....are you serious?
Ok, who gets the short straw and has to read the whole thing?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 12:18pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Ok, who gets the short straw and has to read the whole thing?
MTD Sr. without any experience or rules knowledge.......
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 12:54pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
First off, let me say that I should have melded the first and second sentences of my second-to-last paragraph into a coherent whole. It appears that a number of you focused on my first sentence, and ignored my second.
Rather than write out this treatise, you could have simply said, "Here's what I meant to say:" Then, you could have "melded the first and second sentences" of your penultimate paragraph. Would have saved you a lot of time.

OTOH, let's put them out here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
If the contact truly is beginning after the goal, that is, at minimum, a common player technical foul, 10-3-7, and possibly a flagrant player technical foul, 10-3-8. You have to decide if the push was the result of the offender simply being unaware that a goal had just been scored, in which case you could ignore it (but that is ignoring a foul, unless you deem it incidental contact), or you might loudly verbalize a warning and keep an eye on that player, or you might blow your whistle and simply warn (your primary responsibility IS safety, afterall), or you might decide that the ball was available and at the disposal of the offended player's team, that your five-second count had commenced and was currently at zero, and call a personal foul, as you have been doing.
Rather than debate this point by point (I've got some slothin to do today and don't have time), I'm just going to hi-light what's wrong and let you defend it or not. Your choice.

If, however, you make this decision for the sole purpose of allowing yourself to call a common foul, you've got integrity issues to worry about.

The problem is your second sentence is as full of wrong as your first. Even morre so, frankly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
Secondly, you all sure seem to spend a lot of time arguing about what seems small to me, and not much time discussing what caused me to jump in on NFR’s post in the first place, namely, his apparent reliance on what others casually tell him...blah blah blah
We didn't say anything casually, at least not when it comes to how to adjudicate this play. Just because we didn't provide the rule reference doesn't mean it's not there to find. If you can't find it, feel free to ask. Try doing it without getting preachy some time, you'll get better response.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
I disagree with your position on 10-3-8. NFR mentions no retaliation to any of the pushes, but 4-18 does not require retaliation in order for it to be fighting.
You really should be a bit more hesitant to disagree with his position on an actual rule. He simply said it's not relevant to the OP, and he's correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
As for 4-19-1’s subnote, I view it as making explicit what is elsewhere in the book referred to as “incidental” contact, i.e., it provides us a specific example of incidental contact (4-27). Like I said in my response to NFR, though I did not say it eloquently, he can ignore the dead-ball pushing if he finds it to be incidental, such as if the offender did not realize the basket was made. 4-19-1’s subnote tells us to regard what would otherwise be a common foul as incidental.
No, it doesn't. It tells us to ignore the contact. Calling it "incidental" is misleading. You ignore the dead ball contact if it is not intentional or flagrant. It's that simple, and inserting terms like "incidental" into the equation is neither necessary or helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
However, how often is a push on a rebound not intentional?
Really? The answer to this question is somewhere around 47 times out of 48. Or have you called quite a few rebound pushes in your 18 month career?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
How often is it not intentional when it doesn’t begin until after the goal? That’s the fine line NFR’s question raises, obviously. A late push like that is intentional virtually every time, in my experience.
Then you should be calling them. The fact is, I think your judgment should be questioned if you think these are intentional pushes and you see them often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
Do I call it often? Like APG, no, but I do what I have to to put a stop to it immediately. It all depends on my judgment of the players’ maturity, and their responsiveness to my commands. I don’t know where NFR is at in Oregon, but knowing metropolitan Oregon varsity teams from working their games at summer camps, what NFR is witnessing may just be what they in Oregon regard as “incidental”. Their coaches tell me, with varying regret, it’s “just part of the game” for them, which is a whole different subject, entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
The only thing I said about officials ignoring dead-ball contact is that it is acceptable, providing it is deemed incidental contact, meaning it is not deemed intentional or flagrant.
Just leave the term "intentional" out and you'd be just fine here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
Re-read what I said with all the relevant context this time. [Again, I should have blended my first two sentences together, and made my position more coherent.]
Wouldn't have made a difference, chief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown View Post
Ignats: I assume by “airborn” you mean the ball is still live. Why would you tell yourself to ignore a push during a live ball? Isn’t that what “Points of Emphasis” #1 is all about? A foul is a foul, otherwise, the "game" slowly slips away from us all.
Your vast experience needs some tweeking here. Most times, on a rebounding push, we ignore it if the shot goes in. There's no real advantage as there's no rebound to be "stolen."

Now, if displacement is significant (measurable in yards rather than inches or even feet), we sometimes go get it anyway.

Of course, this is very much like the slap on the wrist as the dribbler drives around the defender. Saying "a foul is a foul" is a way of justifying a call that takes away a layup from a dribbler who did nothing wrong. It's typically a comment made by new refs, coaches, and fans.

Experienced officials want to see the whole play before making a call on this.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 12:59pm.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 19, 2011, 12:57pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
MTD Sr. without any experience or rules knowledge.......
I almost compared him to MTD Sr. in my next post.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 23, 2011, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 89
Response to Snaq, part 1

Snaq: I appreciate your effort, and for adding “penultimate” to my vocabulary—I had to look it up.

That post of mine does look long, doesn’t it (this one even longer, but in you only have yourself to blame). I try to be careful, in order to avoid having to correct myself, later. Other than the first two paragraphs, my second post in this thread is a series of responses to a number of members’ posts, as you probably noticed—none addressed to you, however. I think the reason I didn’t simply say, “Here’s what I meant to say,” is because I believed I had said what I meant to say.

When I saw the quotes in some of the responses, I realized I hadn’t said it well, but I believed all the pieces were there to communicate my meaning, given the context of NFR’s initial post(s). I didn’t re-read my original post then, but just did, now. I still wouldn’t correct myself in the way you suggest. It’s all there, I think, and as I meant it. Maybe it’s a matter of being easier for me to discern because I authored it. Because I did a fairly poor job of phrasing that penultimate paragraph, I’ll agree that it might require some thought/effort on the reader’s part to understand it (but we’re all used to the same with the Rules Book, right?). Understanding what I was saying probably required recognition of the assumptions I had relied upon when writing it, as well. Only Scrapper and JAR gleaned any of them. For example, I probably should not have assumed that readers would know my first sentences assumed it a given that NFR was making a call, or taking action of some kind. I thought this was implied--NFR told us he was making the push calls. He regarded what he saw as air-worthy fouls, at least in the context of live-ball play he did. I probably should have added language like, “Regarding those dead-ball pushes you are currently calling, consider the following options,” I don’t know.

I’m not going to “defend”, as I don’t view it as mine, in that sense—it stands or falls on its merits. It only reflects where I am at the moment, until I’m persuaded otherwise. That is one disappointment I have in this forum, so far, people seem to be defending themselves and attacking others, pronouncing things right and wrong, rather than just stating the rules they think applicable, and then offering interpretive comment separately that the reader can weigh for himself. I’m seeking a better understanding, not to persuade anyone of anything—use what’s useful. With that said, in response to all that you pronounce me wrong on:

>>If, however, you make this decision for the sole purpose of allowing yourself to call a common foul, you've got integrity issues to worry about.

As you say, “if”. Nothing wrong, there--I agree with you.

>> The problem is your second sentence is as full of wrong as your first. Even morre so, frankly.

In regard to your red highlights: Again, my sentence is not well phrased, nor is it comprehensive or complete, and maybe not sufficiently explicit, either (I swear I just heard someone whisper “failure”). I am counting on a shared assumption with the reader. Since NFR had not hinted that he was calling technical fouls on those dead-ball pushes (and by “push,” I do mean illegal contact), I started by envisioning the common occurrence of the offender pushing as part of a box-out, unaware that no rebound is coming, because he is unaware the shot has already scored. Such an act may appear more violent than it normally would, because offended player likely knows the ball is dead and so is no longer expecting to be pushed. In the name of boxing out, I have seen everything from behind-the-back arm-wrap holds of opponents with fistfuls of the opponent’s backside jersey and shorts, to a mild displacement, to literally backing the opponent off the court, as you have. Regarding NFR’s OP, since B1 represents the shooter’s defender (I assume he chose A3, and B1 rather than B3 for a reason), one would expect B1 to be boxing out the shooter at the time. It was difficult for me to imagine exactly what NFR was talking about with A3 coming over to push B1 after the goal. Isn’t A3 likely occupied by B3? It could be an illegal screen creating the push call, but you would think A3 would know A1 had just shot the ball. Perplexing. It added difficulty to my response. I wanted to be comprehensive while brief, which led to some shared assumptions I expected from readers. Anyway, through the end of your red highlighting, I am suggesting to NFR that unless he deems the contact incidental based on 4-19-1’s subnote (bare with me, here—I know you don’t like the connection), then ignoring the contact would be ignoring a foul, because if it is not incidental by virtue of 4-19-1’s subnote, and it is illegal, then it is either intentional (what I referred to as “common” in my OP), or it is one of the two more severely penalized technicals, flagrant or combative (“fighting”--which I get to, later). There are no other possibilities, are there?

>>We didn't say anything casually, at least not when it comes to how to adjudicate this play. Just because we didn't provide the rule reference doesn't mean it's not there to find. If you can't find it, feel free to ask. Try doing it without getting preachy some time, you'll get better response.

I was referring to NFR’s third post, there (post #5 in the thread), but I can expand that, generally. Maybe NFR was already familiar with 4-4-7d, maybe he wasn’t. I think if he had been familiar, however, he would have asked about when the ball becomes available rather than when it is at the disposal--I got the impression he wasn’t making much use of the books, in general. As forum contributors, why use words other than the books’ when stating a rule? Rules language is concise, and carefully chosen to fit together as a whole. APG summarized 4-4-7d pretty well, I thought, but his mixing of rule and interpretation makes it somewhat confusing. I think NFR and everyone else would be better served to hear the applicable rule(s) first, followed by interpretive commentary, and then applicatory play situations as examples, if practical. In this case, once 4-4-7d is stated, the issue seems pretty simple to me. The whole thing turns on a judgment call regarding “availability.” To my knowledge, the book does not define “available,” so we have to do it for ourselves. My interpretive comment, in this case, would be that NFR simply has to use his own sense of fairness to decide when the ball has become available to the team entitled. Others could add additional rules to the discussion, if applicable, and their own interpretive comments and play situations that help define it for them. As a real-time example of what I’m getting at, generally, you could choose to respond to me, here, by telling me I’m wrong about the book offering no definition for “available,” which some on the forum do, or you go a step further, and give the definition in your own words, but without citation, which many try to do, or you could provide the citation, followed by your own interpretive comments/play situations. Paraphrasing rules can only undermine their meaning. The few threads I have read on this forum all reflect some level of disagreement among members. Some of the disagreement regards rules, some of it regards interpretation, but because the two are not kept separate, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Because everything is jumbled together, the discussion isn’t very efficient and helpful, I find. As officials, I’d prefer we stick with the book’s language, quoted and cited (or just cited), and then opine from there. That takes more effort, and I don’t always do it, myself, but it focuses the discussion where it needs to be.

As far as preaching, you read what I had to say regarding that. Now, it is up to you. You are the one interpreting it as preaching. Accept that I am learning, and that I have no particular attachment to anything I argue, then you won’t find me preachy--at least not in the offensive way you are, now. Deal with me as you would a True-or-False-type question on an exam that then requires an explanation. Such a question appears “preachy”, but no one takes offense to it. This is an officials’ forum, not Facebook, right? Deal with the merits, and ignore the personality nonsense. I’m ignoring it from you guys—I’ve been mocked plenty by you and others. I don’t know what else to say.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 23, 2011, 03:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 89
Response to Snaq, part 2

>>You really should be a bit more hesitant to disagree with his position on an actual rule. He simply said it's not relevant to the OP, and he's correct.

It would be helpful if one of you would state why you think 10-3-8 is irrelevant, so I know how to respond. If it is because it is covered within the definition of flagrant foul (4-19-4), I still disagree, because that is merely a definition (Rule 4) that happens to add the fighting foul (10-3-8) into the flagrant bucket, which 10-3-8’s stated penalty has already done. 10-3-8 is the actual foul (Rule 10) that NFR needs to consider. If it is because all fighting otherwise falls under the flagrant part of 10-3-7 when the ball is dead, because fighting is defined as a flagrant act under 4-19-4, I suppose that works, but only because 10-3-8 makes fighting a foul in the first place. 4-19-4 is only definitional, and it only says fighting is a flagrant act, not a flagrant foul—like it’s an afterthought. 10-3-8 is what establishes fighting as a foul. Using 10-3-7 to make 10-3-8 irrelevant in dead-ball situations seems kind of silly. Why not just consider 10-3-8 relevant whether the ball is live or dead? If that were the intent of the rule, the definition of fighting (4-18) would not need to specify that it applies when the ball is dead, would it, since “flagrant” would cover all of the dead-ball acts via 10-3-7? If this is why you find it irrelevant, then I think we are merely arguing semantics. We’re both getting to the same place. If it’s something else, let me try my argument another way: Using NFR’s OP, let’s say A3 “pushes” the shooter’s defender, B1, because A3 is upset by B1’s aggressive box-out of A1 following A1’s shot. Let’s also say A3 makes his push in the form of an aggressive box-out, as well, causing displacement, to avoid what it really is, retaliation, or retaliation designed to instigate a combative reaction that gets B1 ejected. If I have seen the whole play, I might want A3 gone, but the act, itself, I might not think is flagrant: “of a violent or savage nature,” “extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.” It’s nothing different than what B1 did to A1—except for the state of mind that I inferred, making it combative. 4-19-4 does say fighting is a flagrant act, but I argue that you first have to use 10-3-8 to charge it fighting.

Essentially, I had the preceding happen following the second of two foul shots in a high-school JV game. I was T in 2-man. When turned my attention back to the lane after bringing in subs, the closest B on the lane was wide-eyed and animated, demanding to know if I just saw the shooter shove him. I’m clueless, as is my partner. Between shots, the two Bs closest to the shooter had met in the lane, and were returning to their spaces when I turned around. The shooter didn’t deny B’s accusation, so maybe they taunted the shooter while in the lane, and he retaliated with a shove, who knows. The ball got administered for the second throw as I watched the two Bs staring at each other across the lane, gesturing—I sensed trouble, but what am I going to do at that point? As the shot went up and in, both Bs went for the shooter. Because the excited one went early, he got there first, but after the goal, and delivered what would normally appear to be a personal foul in the form of a hard box-out on the shooter, who was still holding his arms up from the follow-through. The shooter went to the floor on impact, and I whistled simultaneously. I charged B1 with fighting, and ejected him. No one had a problem with the call, including the ejected kid, who knew he had just let his emotions get the best of him (we talked after the game). In my mind, the act didn’t meet the definition of flagrant, i.e., I would not call that act flagrant during an actual rebounding situation, so 10-3-7 doesn’t fit for me. 4-19-4 tells me fighting is a flagrant act, but I first have to charge fighting, and that’s what 10-3-8 does. It certainly was intentional, but this was a heated, competitive game, and if I had doled out a “common player technical foul” (take it easy, you know what I mean, now), the kid would have remained, and things would have escalated, I’m sure. We had no problems after the ejection. After logging it in the book, I went to the shooter’s coach, and said, “You know, I think your guy started that.” He said, “Yeah, that’s why he’s coming out after these foul shots,” and the kid never went back in—we were in the second quarter.

You can see that I have some basis for arguing 10-3-8 is relevant to NFR’s OP. If all you are willing to do is repeat, “No, it’s not,” you might as well not bring it up, at all. That reminds me of another thread I read a few days ago. An Administrator started a thread about a play situation Referee Magazine had analyzed involving a double-foul during an alternating-possession throw-in. Jurassic said it was an easy call, and condemned RM for getting it wrong. There was little or no rules analyses; I think Jurassic thought a mere definition solved it, and everyone except Scrapper went along (I don’t recall if you were in on that one, or not). In actuality, Scrapper and RM have it correct. My association covers this exact play situation in our study groups each year—both years that I’ve been there, at least. I think it was this play situation that I was told our state’s association requested an interpretation of from NFHS some years back. I didn’t have time to make a post at the time, but I will go back and post the analysis we use, if no one else has already done so.

>> No, it doesn't. It tells us to ignore the contact. Calling it "incidental" is misleading. You ignore the dead ball contact if it is not intentional or flagrant. It's that simple, and inserting terms like "incidental" into the equation is neither necessary or helpful.

We are also told to ignore incidental contact, it just doesn’t use the word “ignore”. I don’t know how you can say that 4-19-4’s subnote is not describing “contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul,” 4-27. Is the contact referenced in 4-19-4’s subnote with an opponent? Yes. Is it permitted? Yes. Does it not constitute a foul? Yes. You haven’t made an argument denying any of this, assuming there is one to make, so I’ll leave it at that. Even if one could be made, I don’t see a purpose to saying it doesn’t meet incidental’s definition. They have the same affect—no call, ignore. I agree that it is not necessary, but I find it helpful, because incidental contact is a bit of a gray area for new officials, and 4-19-4’s subnote tightens it up a little with a play situation. Let me know if you see harm in that, somehow.

>>Really? The answer to this question is somewhere around 47 times out of 48. Or have you called quite a few rebound pushes in your 18 month career?

I’m not sure you understood. Without specificity, I don’t know what you are arguing. Mine is a lead-up question to the one that follows it, and then on to the question that NFR’s OP presents. In the sense that I mean “intentional”, here, 10-6 fouls based on 4-37 definitions are virtually always the result of the offender intending to perform whatever illegal act was performed. They don’t accidentally put two arms into the front or back of their opponent, and push them under the basket. They intend to do it. On its face, your statement is suggesting that what 4-37-2a,c,d define as illegal is accidental 98% of the time. I know you don’t mean that, but I can’t tell what you do mean.

>>Then you should be calling them. The fact is, I think your judgment should be questioned if you think these are intentional pushes and you see them often.

I mean it in the sense that they are not accidental, not that they are “intentional fouls”, 10-3-7, which is defined as “neutralizing an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.” As an official, I have seen very few pushes that meet NFR’s OP scenario, very very few. I never intimated how many I saw. I said of those that I did see (including as a fan for thirty years), they are intentional (“not accidental”). Do they neutralize? Some, probably, but I can’t recall ever calling an intentional foul (10-3-7) in that situation. Hopefully, this clears up what has got to be some misinterpretation of what I said. Although, because you don’t cite what you refer to, I can’t be certain of what you mean, either.

>>Wouldn't have made a difference, chief.

Is your name Rich? I didn’t think so.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Foul while shot in air force39 Basketball 14 Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:26am
Question - One handed push in back WHILE Jump ball with other during shot bradfordwilkins Basketball 9 Tue Mar 08, 2005 09:06pm
Question - One handed push in back WHILE Jump ball with other during shot bradfordwilkins Basketball 1 Mon Mar 07, 2005 08:56pm
Foul Shot Burtis449 Basketball 10 Fri Sep 24, 2004 09:53am
Foul after shot JWC Basketball 3 Wed Dec 11, 2002 09:06am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1