Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[RandyBrown]

First off, disposal is covered in 4-5-7, 4-42-3, and maybe elsewhere. If you cannot find an answer to a rules question in the book, yourself, I encourage you to ask others for a book citation. Just as you said has been your experience on this one, you are going to get a variety of answers (meaning a number of incorrect ones) if you simply ask others what the rule is, rather than asking them which rule(s), specifically, govern in the situation you are asking about. Our collective reliance on others for the rules, rather than on the book, perpetuates our ignorance--see this year's Point of Emphasis #1, page 66 (2010-2011). Once you find the governing rule(s) in the book, then you can ask others for their interpretation of those specific rules in relation to game situations you have questions about, discuss it with them, and formulate your own interpretation--which may change over time as you gain experience.

Regarding your initial question, I find it unlikely that the pushing you are referring to BEGINS after the goal, 5-1-1. Is it possible you are catching the tail-end of the contact, and it actually began prior to the goal? Consider, a goal isn't scored until the ball is through the net (the net is part of the basket, 1-10 and 6-1, and 5-1-1 says the ball must pass THROUGH the basket (or remain in) in order to be a goal).

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. Let's face it, professionals don't ignore fouls. A foul is a foul. We don't make the rules, experts do. We simply enforce them, and in so doing, ensure the integrity of the game.

In your mind, imagine various reasons or causes a player might commit such a foul, decide in each case what your call should be, and then try to apply those principles to what you see on the court--learning all the time, of course.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Huh?

NFHS rule 10-3-7 refers to intentional or flagrant technicals fouls only. You can't have a "common player technical foul" by rule(R4-19-1NOTE). You have to decide which one is appropriate...intentional or flagrant..... if you're going to call a dead-ball contact foul.

NFHS rule 10-3-8 is a fighting technical foul. That's completely irrevelent to this discussion.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Huh?

NFHS rule 10-3-7 refers to intentional or flagrant technicals fouls only. You can't have a "common player technical foul" by rule(R4-19-1NOTE). You have to decide which one is appropriate...intentional or flagrant..... if you're going to call a dead-ball contact foul.

NFHS rule 10-3-8 is a fighting technical foul. That's completely irrevelent to this discussion.

A classic example of "Our collective reliance on others for the rules, rather than on the book, perpetuates our ignorance..."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

"Common technical foul" to mean "run-of-the-mill technical foul", as opposed to a flagrant.

How about "garden variety" technical foul? I'll have my interpreter send this in as a definition suggestion to the NFHS.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong by rule, as I was pointing out.

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".

Hell, Scrappy, you know that.

I really don't care what Randy was trying to say. I do care that what he did say was completely wrong.

[BillyMac]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

First off, disposal is covered in 4-5-7, 4-42-3, and maybe elsewhere. If you cannot find an answer to a rules question in the book, yourself, I encourage you to ask others for a book citation. Just as you said has been your experience on this one, you are going to get a variety of answers (meaning a number of incorrect ones) if you simply ask others what the rule is, rather than asking them which rule(s), specifically, govern in the situation you are asking about. Our collective reliance on others for the rules, rather than on the book, perpetuates our ignorance--see this year's Point of Emphasis #1, page 66 (2010-2011). Once you find the governing rule(s) in the book, then you can ask others for their interpretation of those specific rules in relation to game situations you have questions about, discuss it with them, and formulate your own interpretation--which may change over time as you gain experience.

Regarding your initial question, I find it unlikely that the pushing you are referring to BEGINS after the goal, 5-1-1. Is it possible you are catching the tail-end of the contact, and it actually began prior to the goal? Consider, a goal isn't scored until the ball is through the net (the net is part of the basket, 1-10 and 6-1, and 5-1-1 says the ball must pass THROUGH the basket (or remain in) in order to be a goal).

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. Let's face it, professionals don't ignore fouls. A foul is a foul. We don't make the rules, experts do. We simply enforce them, and in so doing, ensure the integrity of the game.

In your mind, imagine various reasons or causes a player might commit such a foul, decide in each case what your call should be, and then try to apply those principles to what you see on the court--learning all the time, of course.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong by rule, as I was pointing out.

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".

Hell, Scrappy, you know that.

I really don't care what Randy was trying to say. I do care that what he did say was completely wrong.

Ah, the genesis of Randall's rule book parsing rants. He incorrectly quoted the rules in his very first post and Jurassic, as is his wont to do, called him on it. It offended Randall's Mensa superiority complex that this "Facebook" group of officials pointed out his errors and he is out for revenge.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[RandyBrown]

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.