Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[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.

[RandyBrown]

>>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.

[RandyBrown]

>>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.

“Most times”?! “Yards rather than inches or even feet”?! And you mock me?! No one can make you appreciate Points of Emphasis #1. The Committee can repeat it every year, forever. As long as assignors and local boards don’t enforce it, it isn’t ever going to make a difference with some. They just don’t get it. I appreciate what you’re saying, believe me--I get “patient whistle”, but that doesn’t mean I accept it as a philosophy. It has proven itself to be a slippery slope, you must agree. NFHS is not imagining the negative impact from our deviation--they experience it. Committee members are from all over the country. I’m sure they are constantly talking to coaches and ADs. If we don’t use the rules-as-written as the line in the sand, then there is no common line—it varies with every official as we slide down the slope. Coaches and ADs and parents, through NFHS, get to make the rules, not us. You clearly do not appreciate The Intent and Purpose of the Rules, (p.7), which is why the Committee felt the need to write POE #1. Your comment in opposition to “a foul is a foul” is true in my neck of the woods, too, but your acceptance of it makes you a member of their target audience. I’m not comfortable there, and never intend to be.

[tref]

Well I think... wait a minute, my name is not Snaqs or Rich.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

>>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.

“Most times”?! “Yards rather than inches or even feet”?! And you mock me?! No one can make you appreciate Points of Emphasis #1. The Committee can repeat it every year, forever. As long as assignors and local boards don’t enforce it, it isn’t ever going to make a difference with some. They just don’t get it. I appreciate what you’re saying, believe me--I get “patient whistle”, but that doesn’t mean I accept it as a philosophy. It has proven itself to be a slippery slope, you must agree. NFHS is not imagining the negative impact from our deviation--they experience it. Committee members are from all over the country. I’m sure they are constantly talking to coaches and ADs. If we don’t use the rules-as-written as the line in the sand, then there is no common line—it varies with every official as we slide down the slope. Coaches and ADs and parents, through NFHS, get to make the rules, not us. You clearly do not appreciate The Intent and Purpose of the Rules, (p.7), which is why the Committee felt the need to write POI #1. Your comment in opposition to “a foul is a foul” is true in my neck of the woods, too, but your acceptance of it makes you a member of their target audience. I’m not comfortable there, and never intend to be.

I've got to tell you I have no intention of reading your entire response. The crux of your position seems to asking us to just quote the rules. Why? You can read them, right? The fact is, "incidental" is no where stated in the dead ball contact rule. Stick to the right words, correct?

As for this post, it's not me who is displaying an inability to understand the purpose and intent of the rules.

Here's what it boils down to with contact (completely off topic from the OP, but hey, we do that all the time). There's too much contact on the court to call it all a foul, so we have to have a way of deciding which contact to call and which to ignore. How? The incidental contact rule, and even the very definition of "foul." To paraphrase, "contact which does not prevent the opponent from performing normal defensive or offensive movements should be ruled incidental."

How this is interpreted probably varies widely by region, but from your comments above, your area isn't appreciably different than mine in this regard.

If you have a dribbler driving past a defender, and the defender slaps the arm of the dribbler while getting beat, are you going to call the foul?

You have two rebounders, one behind the other facing the basket. The one behind pushes the one in front so that it moves him a couple of inches; yet the one in front gets the rebound. Are you going to call that foul based on your "a foul is a foul" theory?

"A foul is a foul" is, quite simply, the ultimate truism; and just as meaningless. Most officials realize that not all contact is a foul.

Now, I realize I've been a bit snarky lately, and for that I apologize. Chalk it up to sleep apnea or something.

[Adam]

And as for "intentional," I took it to mean the rule definition of intentional foul, rather than the dictionary definition of intentional. The way this rule is typically interpreted, you ignore dead ball contact unless it rises to the level where it would be called intentional if the ball were live (or flagrant). 99% of rebounding shoves in the back simply don't qualify.

[Jurassic Referee]

Do you work on the principle of Bullsh!t baffles brains?

WOBW

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you work on the principle of Bullsh!t baffles brains?

WOBW

You actually read that? I didn't get past the first 2 lines when I saw that is response was longer than The Grapes of Wrath.