Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Now I see my intuition was correct in ignoring this thread.

You are still wise beyond your years.

Randy has now used more words in 7 posts than you have in 4350. Just saying....

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Snaq: Your're alright. I wouldn't read it, either--not without a brandy, my easy-chair, and a fire, at least. Thanks for the time, again.

No, not "just" the rules. I'm saying, not absent them. Quoting/citing focuses thread participants on the exact language. It lets everyone know where everyone else is starting from. It gets us all talking about the sames thing: the rule(s), as written, as opposed to our own individual summaries of the rule(s) tangled with our individual interpetations of same. The latter makes it difficult to know if the speaker is basing a contention on the same rule(s) the reader may have in mind or on a different rule(s), or whether the contention is based solely on interpretation. Even if we all had every rule memorized, verbatim, we still wouldn't necessarily know which of them the speaker was using for support.

For example, you reference the dead-ball contact rule. I assume you are referring to 4-19-1's subnote, but I don't know that. I don't know the rules well enough to know that there isn't another rule mentioning dead-ball contact, or that I haven't since forgotten it if I once knew it. If this forum is only for those who have mastered the rules, then I'm not sure what you all have left to talk about. If it is also for those who have not mastered the rules, and doubt they ever will, then quotes/cites make the threads, and learning, more efficient.

As far as my specific use of "incidental" in the context of 4-19-1's subnote, you haven't moved me. I understand you haven't previously made the connection between the two, but that's not an argument. You don't argue that the subnote's contact does not conform to the stated definition of "incidental", nor do you provide a specific example of the subnote's contact that does not meet incidental's definition. I don't agree that just because the word "incidental" is not used in the subnote, the contact described doesn't fall under the larger definition of incidental. To flip it on you, they could have included the word, couldn't they have, without any change in substance, i.e., couldn't they have said, "This contact should be ruled incidental unless intentional or flagrant" and accomplished the same result? I don't see any difference. The definition of "incidental" does not limit itself to live-ball contact, that I noticed. To convince me, I think you would have to give me an example of the subnote's contact that did not meet incidental's definition. [Reminder: I'm not saying I'm not incorrectly using the term, only that I don't think you have shown me as much.]

Regarding intent of the rules, I think you miss. I agree with all that you say, factually. The Federation uses those facts to arrive at a very different prescription, however. The say you only see all that contact, because that is the monster you, yourselves, have created. Now, parents, coaches, ADs, and state associations are *****ing (actually, for at least the last five years in my state, I've been told). Your regional-difference remark is a symptom of what the Federation is telling us to right. Rules application should be uniform throughout. There should be no regional difference. They are saying there shouldn't be all that contact you speak of on the court, that officials are encouraging it, by not calling it, which then leads us to rough play. I know of no one, save a few AAU teams, perhaps, who appreciate the way we call the game these days. I don't know how old you are, but that contact you speak of didn't exist thirty years ago when I played, because officials didn't allow it. We've had this slow creep over the years. The Federation is pointing out that inconsequential contact (such as exists in your two play-situation examples) is different than incidental contact by their definition. Whether contact is incidental doesn't turn of whether there is advantage/disadvantage, even if officials were capable of discerning it--talk about arrogance, eh? For example, how do we know the coach wouldn't prefer the foul to an easy bucket? Maybe his strategy involves getting into the bonus as quickly as possible. We can't know. Incidental must be thought of in context with 10-6. Apply 10-6-2 to your two play situations, for instance, and try to argue incidental: "contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul". The Federation is telling us that we have "gone off the reservation", that determining whether contact is incidental does not mean applying a advantage/disadvantage filter to 10-6. Think of the mayhem that could eventually lead to (some say we're already there). Literally, "incidental" is defined as that which occurs by chance or without intention, which is exactly how I would answer your two play-situations. If it wasn't by chance or without intention, 10-6, otherwise, we end up where we are, POI #1.

It's that slippery slope thing. You know the Federation's argument. I won't restate it any more than I already have. What I, personally, think the whole contact thing boils down to is a decision on the part of parents, ADs, and state associations as to whether they want to follow NFHS rules, or not. They don't have to. In the meantime, as certified officials wearing patches, I think we have to stick with exactly what is prescribed, rather than to relatively recent convention.

Agree with you on the 99% thing--I was speaking in the general sense of "intentional" at the time, which indirectly fed into what I just said above about incidental, I think--can't recall, now.

I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. What was that again?

[grunewar]

5 minutes to go in second half. Zeller (NC) gets the rebound and puts it in. After ball goes through, Gartner (Marq) helps Zellers to the floor. TWEET! Zellers goes to the line for 1 and 1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

5 minutes to go in second half. Zeller (NC) gets the rebound and puts it in. After ball goes through, Gartner (Marq) helps Zellers to the floor. TWEET! Zellers goes to the line for 1 and 1.

Adams won't like that one.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by grunewar

5 minutes to go in second half. Zeller (NC) gets the rebound and puts it in. After ball goes through, Gartner (Marq) helps Zellers to the floor. TWEET! Zellers goes to the line for 1 and 1.

I saw it and didn't think the ball had gone through the basket when the foul occurred. There were several contacts as the guy went to the floor, any one of which might have been called. You might be right, though, I saw it in real time and one replay.

I'd think you'd call a common foul unless you were 100% certain the foul occurred after the bucket. Lead/new trail called the foul.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Your argument about the coach's strategy of getting into the bonus isn't valid. The advantage to look for is in the contact itself, not the punishment. You call the foul to punish the illegal advantage. I don't give a crap if he'd rather have the foul than the layup. It doesn't matter, because if his player has a wide open layup, then they weren't prevented from doing normal offensive movements. Therefore, by rule, no foul.

I don't believe even you believe what you are arguing. The test would be, are you going to ignore that slap on the dribbler's arm no matter how hard and loud it is, as long as it doesn't stop an easy layup? Your argument says you are. Are coaches, players, fans going to be fine with that on every layup--it only being called when the layup is missed? What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved." I'm curious: What do you think they are talking about in POE #1?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I don't believe even you believe what you are arguing. The test would be, are you going to ignore that slap on the dribbler's arm no matter how hard and loud it is, as long as it doesn't stop an easy layup? Your argument says you are. Are coaches, players, fans going to be fine with that on every layup--it only being called when the layup is missed? What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

Wow, you've just displayed an incredible lack of understanding.

Are you going to judge whether to call a foul based on how loud th slap is?

Let me answer a couple of your questions.

First, yes I am. I frankly don't give a crap what the coach, players, or fans think either. If he asks nicely, I'll explain to him that while there was contact, his player played through it and got a layup that I really wouldn't want to take away from him. So tell me, what normal defensive or offensive movements were prevented by a slap on the arm in this play?

And for the record, I don't care if he misses the layup on that play either. I'm not calling it either way; it's on the player for missing an easy layup that in itself was not affected at all by contact earlier in his drive.

And coaches that understand the rules also understand why you let that call go; in fact they get a bit irate when you call those fouls and take away easy shots.

My book's at home, so I'll have to comment on what I expect to be a complete mis-reading of the rule when I'm actually able to read it tonight.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)?

My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

Sigh......

Advantage/disadvantage has been specifically spelled out in every rule book for ...oh...about the last 50 years at least. It's there. You just don't know where to look for it. And I ain't telling you.

And someday you also might learn that we really don't care what coaches think. I also hate to break it to you, but advantage/disadvantage is what separates illegal contact from incidental contact in most situations.

Every time you open your mouth, you show us exactly what little you do know about officiating. On the bright side though, you are using fewer words to illustrate your ignorance.

[Welpe]

Oh look, Snaqs and MTD, Sr. are arguing....

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

On the bright side though, you are using fewer words to illustrate your ignorance.

For professional reasons, I wonder how many words it takes to illustrate ignorance. That's an excellent puzzle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Oh look, Snaqs and MTD, Sr. are arguing....

Nah, MTD is only this wrong when it comes to The University of Ohio at Columbus.

[Welpe]

Oh you mean that's not MTD? I just assumed based upon the words/post ratio.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Oh you mean that's not MTD? I just assumed based upon the words/post ratio.

One could easily make that mistake since both tend to make your eyes roll into your head with the length of their posts; thus rendering their posts identical to most mortals.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

One could easily make that mistake since both tend to make your eyes roll into your head with the length of their posts; thus rendering their posts identical to most mortals.

The difference though is one of 'em actually does know something about the rules.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

One could easily make that mistake since both tend to make your eyes roll into your head with the length of their posts; thus rendering their posts identical to most mortals.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The difference though is one of 'em actually does know something about the rules.

And the other is MTD, Sr.

Sorry, channeling my inner Bill Maher.