Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?
 

Instinctively, reactively, I seem to be calling these a lot lately.

A1 puts up a shot, as it is in the net, or already through (good basket) A3 is pushing B1. I have made this foul call several times lately, including once tonight in our youth tournee 8th grade girls playoff. I count the basket, report the foul and B team inbounds.

My question is how often do others make this call, -vs- letting it go?

By rule, the ball is dead after a made basket and contact is ignored unless you rule it to be intentional or flagrant. And by rule it'll be a technical foul.

Most likely I'm letting the play go unless I HAVE to get it.

I knew I was kicking this somehow.

In tonight's game, I blew it before I saw that the shot was long over and made. Nothing int/flagrant there, so maybe could have gone IW.

I don't know why I have no problem going no-call during a dead-ball while we are inbounding (unless, as you said, int/flagrant), but I have had trouble lately holding back after a basket.

Something "I" need to work on.

Once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in, it's live. So I'm not sure what you mean here.

Ah, this brings me to a question I have been meaning to post....

NFHS, when IS the ball at the disposal of the thrower?

I have heard multiple different answers to this.

A) In their hands once OOB endline.

B) In their hands regardless of whether they are OOB.

C) On the floor but available to them.

Generally it'll be A if the throw in team doesn't delay in getting the ball. Otherwise, if the team is not prompt in getting the ball and out of bounds the count will start (which means it is at the disposal). Sometimes that means it's at the disposal when the ball is on the ground or while a player has the ball in his hands but still inbounds.

Glad to hear this. I had a partner earlier this year, one who is considered senior to me, tell me I was wrong to start my count when the players were arguing over who was going to inbound, I see one of them is holding the ball after a made basket and I begin a 5 count.

Same thing happened after a made basket, the teams "usual inbounder" headed down court, ball bouncing around the endline, the player they usually inbound the ball to just stands there yelling for the "inbounder" to come throw it in, I again start my 5 count. Sounds like I am okay here.

As for the OP, illegal contact, push foul in tonight's example occurred exactly as the ball was falling through the net and bouncing to the floor. Sounds like I should have let this go. (again, unless int/flagrant).

If this same contact occurs, or continues, once the "new" offense has the ball at their disposal (live), then would be the appropriate time to make call.

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.

Huh? :confused:

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..." :)

For being fairly preachy, there's a lot wrong in your post. Ignoring dead ball contact is *exactly* what an official is to do, by rule, unless the contact is intentional or flagrant. I'll let you look up the reference.

I have made that call twice although both times when the try was still airborn. I wanted to pass on the contact both times but it was still blatant enough that my whistle went off despite me telling it not to. ;)

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.

Idiom Also Used In Australia ...
 

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

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.