Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

!) 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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Ok, who gets the short straw and has to read the whole thing?

MTD Sr. without any experience or rules knowledge.......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

MTD Sr. without any experience or rules knowledge.......

I almost compared him to MTD Sr. in my next post.

[RandyBrown]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

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. 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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.