Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[RandyBrown]

The following is in the NFHS Rulebook on page 7:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

I stand corrected--strictly speaking. The reference above is in a different context. Snaq and I were talking about advantage/disadvantage as a means of judging whether live-ball contact that otherwise meets the threashold of foul should be ignored as incidental. My point was that they could insert its application into the actual rules at any time, but continually choose not to. Its use in the "Intent and Purpose" is quite different.

The following is not in the NFHS Rulebook, but is regarded by most experienced officials as being just as important as anything in the rulebook:

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

Personally, I think the books are self-sufficient. I really question whether there is room for "philosophy." The books cover it all amazingly well. I appreciate you sharing it, but I feel more than capable of figuring it out for myself--they did, so will I. If you don't mind, I would like to hear your opinion on POE #1, and how you think it relates to what you quoted.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The Federation argues that players would soon adjust to whatever we call. I agree, do you? As I have mentioned elsewhere, the volume of contact you speak of was not present in the game thirty and forty years ago, because officials did not tolerate it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Snaq and I were talking about advantage/disadvantage as a means of judging whether live-ball contact that otherwise meets the threashold of foul should be ignored as incidental. My point was that they could insert its application into the actual rules at any time, but continually choose not to. Its use in the "Intent and Purpose" is quite different.

First, that wasn't the context. The context of that particular phrase was WRT the POI rule. The purpose and intent of all the rules is to prevent unfair advantage; and holding the arrow or removing the ability to run the endline constitute an advantage for one team when none is intended.

Second, the rules for contact are clear. I'm not placing more emphasis on 4-27-3 than the rule makers intended. The problem is, by its very nature, it's subjective and there's no way to avoid it. What I see as an advantage (or "hinderance") is viewed as others as incidental; and the opposite is true sometimes as well. There's a string in the NCAA thread, with a video, where I see incidental contact on play some would (and in fact the NCAA official on the ball did) rule a foul.

That's what I meant when I said the phrase "a foul is a foul" is meaningless.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Personally, I think the books are self-sufficient.

Good luck in your career, because you obviously don't feel you need instruction from officials in your area working games to which you strive.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

The Federation argues that players would soon adjust to whatever we call. I agree, do you? As I have mentioned elsewhere, the volume of contact you speak of was not present in the game thirty and forty years ago, because officials did not tolerate it.

This is the very play we've talked about. Rule 4-27-3 is clear, it's not a foul if the offense isn't hindered. Yeah, they'll adjust, but you'll be calling the game at the junior high level for your entire career if you don't adjust and start implementing 4-27-3.

Let me ask you again, exactly how do you differentiate between a slap that is incidental or a slap that isn't? Do you use 10-6-2 to call a foul every time someone touches an opponent with his hand? What about 10-6-6? Do you call a foul everytime a defender "contacts" his opponent from behind?

10-6-7: Are you going to call the dribbler for a foul when he tries to go between defenders and one of them gets a steal while neither was displaced?

10-6-9: Dribbler is approaching his defender and stops, making very slight contact with the defender's chest. You calling a foul?