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.

Fail-Safe ...
 

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.

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.

So Pure, It Floats ...
 

Wow. A higher percentage than Ivory Soap. I didn't think that was mathematically possible.

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?

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.

Clarification/Correction/More Preaching
 

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.

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?

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

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:

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

Just leave the term "intentional" out and you'd be just fine here.

Wouldn't have made a difference, chief.

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.

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

Response to Snaq, part 1
 

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.

Response to Snaq, part 2
 

>>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.

Response to Snaq, final
 

>>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.

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

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.

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.

Response to Randy...final
 

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.

Nope, life's too short to wade through something like that. I went with the Cliff Notes version..."I'm right, you're wrong and I'm smarter than you anyway....nanny nanny booboo."

But on the bright side, he did say it was his final response. :D

Wanna bet? ;)

(He said it was his final response to Snaqs)

I was gonna respond to Book 2 by asking Randy if he would elaborate.

It felt like I was looking at an actual act of congress.

War and Peace making an appearance on the Officials Forum over a simple play that no one except the Randy Brown has an issue over. Imagine if we were discussing something that people actually argued over...say a recent interp...the server might not be able to handle the sheer volume that would be sure to ensue.

Less is better
 

Snaq: Your're alright. I wouldn't read it, either--not without a brandy, my easy-chair, and a fire, at least. Thanks for the time, again.

No, not "just" the rules. I'm saying, not absent them. Quoting/citing focuses thread participants on the exact language. It lets everyone know where everyone else is starting from. It gets us all talking about the sames thing: the rule(s), as written, as opposed to our own individual summaries of the rule(s) tangled with our individual interpetations of same. The latter makes it difficult to know if the speaker is basing a contention on the same rule(s) the reader may have in mind or on a different rule(s), or whether the contention is based solely on interpretation. Even if we all had every rule memorized, verbatim, we still wouldn't necessarily know which of them the speaker was using for support.

For example, you reference the dead-ball contact rule. I assume you are referring to 4-19-1's subnote, but I don't know that. I don't know the rules well enough to know that there isn't another rule mentioning dead-ball contact, or that I haven't since forgotten it if I once knew it. If this forum is only for those who have mastered the rules, then I'm not sure what you all have left to talk about. If it is also for those who have not mastered the rules, and doubt they ever will, then quotes/cites make the threads, and learning, more efficient.

As far as my specific use of "incidental" in the context of 4-19-1's subnote, you haven't moved me. I understand you haven't previously made the connection between the two, but that's not an argument. You don't argue that the subnote's contact does not conform to the stated definition of "incidental", nor do you provide a specific example of the subnote's contact that does not meet incidental's definition. I don't agree that just because the word "incidental" is not used in the subnote, the contact described doesn't fall under the larger definition of incidental. To flip it on you, they could have included the word, couldn't they have, without any change in substance, i.e., couldn't they have said, "This contact should be ruled incidental unless intentional or flagrant" and accomplished the same result? I don't see any difference. The definition of "incidental" does not limit itself to live-ball contact, that I noticed. To convince me, I think you would have to give me an example of the subnote's contact that did not meet incidental's definition. [Reminder: I'm not saying I'm not incorrectly using the term, only that I don't think you have shown me as much.]

Regarding intent of the rules, I think you miss. I agree with all that you say, factually. The Federation uses those facts to arrive at a very different prescription, however. They say you only see all that contact, because that is the monster you, yourselves, have created. Now, parents, coaches, ADs, and state associations are *****ing (actually, for at least the last five years in my state, I've been told). Your regional-difference remark is a symptom of what the Federation is telling us to right. Rules application should be uniform throughout. There should be no regional difference. They are saying there shouldn't be all that contact you speak of on the court, that officials are encouraging it, by not calling it, which then leads us to rough play. I know of no one, save a few AAU teams, perhaps, who appreciate the way we call the game these days. I don't know how old you are, but that contact you speak of didn't exist thirty years ago when I played, because officials didn't allow it. We've had this slow creep over the years. The Federation is pointing out that inconsequential contact (such as exists in your two play-situation examples) is different than incidental contact by their definition. Whether contact is incidental doesn't turn of whether there is advantage/disadvantage, even if officials were capable of discerning it--talk about arrogance, eh? For example, how do we know the coach wouldn't prefer the foul to an easy bucket? Maybe his strategy involves getting into the bonus as quickly as possible. We can't know. Incidental must be thought of in context with 10-6. Apply 10-6-2 to your two play situations, for instance, and try to argue incidental: "contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul". The Federation is telling us that we have "gone off the reservation", that determining whether contact is incidental does not mean applying a advantage/disadvantage filter to 10-6. Think of the mayhem that could eventually lead to (some say we're already there). Literally, "incidental" is defined as that which occurs by chance or without intention, which is exactly how I would answer your two play-situations. If it wasn't by chance or without intention, 10-6, otherwise, we end up where we are, POE #1.

It's that slippery slope thing. You know the Federation's argument. I won't restate it any more than I already have. What I, personally, think the whole contact thing boils down to is a decision on the part of parents, ADs, and state associations as to whether they want to follow NFHS rules, or not. They don't have to. In the meantime, as certified officials wearing patches, I think we have to stick with exactly what is prescribed, rather than to relatively recent convention.

Agree with you on the 99% thing--I was speaking in the general sense of "intentional" at the time, which indirectly fed into what I just said above about incidental, I think--can't recall, now.

No, I would need Aderrall . Nothing more, nothing less.

Your argument about the coach's strategy of getting into the bonus isn't valid. The advantage to look for is in the contact itself, not the punishment. You call the foul to punish the illegal advantage. I don't give a crap if he'd rather have the foul than the layup. It doesn't matter, because if his player has a wide open layup, then they weren't prevented from doing normal offensive movements. Therefore, by rule, no foul.

Now I see my intuition was correct in ignoring this thread. :cool:

You are still wise beyond your years.:D

Randy has now used more words in 7 posts than you have in 4350. Just saying....

I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. What was that again?

Marq vs UNC
 

5 minutes to go in second half. Zeller (NC) gets the rebound and puts it in. After ball goes through, Gartner (Marq) helps Zellers to the floor. TWEET! Zellers goes to the line for 1 and 1.

Adams won't like that one.

I saw it and didn't think the ball had gone through the basket when the foul occurred. There were several contacts as the guy went to the floor, any one of which might have been called. You might be right, though, I saw it in real time and one replay.

I'd think you'd call a common foul unless you were 100% certain the foul occurred after the bucket. Lead/new trail called the foul.

I don't believe even you believe what you are arguing. The test would be, are you going to ignore that slap on the dribbler's arm no matter how hard and loud it is, as long as it doesn't stop an easy layup? Your argument says you are. Are coaches, players, fans going to be fine with that on every layup--it only being called when the layup is missed? What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved." I'm curious: What do you think they are talking about in POE #1?

Wow, you've just displayed an incredible lack of understanding.

Are you going to judge whether to call a foul based on how loud th slap is?

Let me answer a couple of your questions.

First, yes I am. I frankly don't give a crap what the coach, players, or fans think either. If he asks nicely, I'll explain to him that while there was contact, his player played through it and got a layup that I really wouldn't want to take away from him. So tell me, what normal defensive or offensive movements were prevented by a slap on the arm in this play?

And for the record, I don't care if he misses the layup on that play either. I'm not calling it either way; it's on the player for missing an easy layup that in itself was not affected at all by contact earlier in his drive.

And coaches that understand the rules also understand why you let that call go; in fact they get a bit irate when you call those fouls and take away easy shots.

My book's at home, so I'll have to comment on what I expect to be a complete mis-reading of the rule when I'm actually able to read it tonight.

:)Sigh......:rolleyes:

Advantage/disadvantage has been specifically spelled out in every rule book for ...oh...about the last 50 years at least. It's there. You just don't know where to look for it. And I ain't telling you. :)

And someday you also might learn that we really don't care what coaches think. I also hate to break it to you, but advantage/disadvantage is what separates illegal contact from incidental contact in most situations.

Every time you open your mouth, you show us exactly what little you do know about officiating. On the bright side though, you are using fewer words to illustrate your ignorance.

Oh look, Snaqs and MTD, Sr. are arguing....

For professional reasons, I wonder how many words it takes to illustrate ignorance. That's an excellent puzzle.

Nah, MTD is only this wrong when it comes to The University of Ohio at Columbus.

Oh you mean that's not MTD? I just assumed based upon the words/post ratio. :cool:

One could easily make that mistake since both tend to make your eyes roll into your head with the length of their posts; thus rendering their posts identical to most mortals.

The difference though is one of 'em actually does know something about the rules.

And the other is MTD, Sr.

Sorry, channeling my inner Bill Maher. :D

So either way, we can't process them with a normal brain?

Probably can't process them with your brain either.

When they put it on a tee for ya......:D

Bad Woddy!

bad, bad Woddy!

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but...did somebody miss a Charlie Sheen reference? ;)

You're Charley Sheen?

You Can Look It Up ...
 

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.

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

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

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 "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Okay, I promised to address this, so here goes.

Incidental doesn't mean what I say it does, it means what 4-27 says it does. In particular, with regard to this discussion, I'm thinking of 4-27-3. Now, 10-6-2:This, along with every other article in 10-6 has to be read in light of 4-27-3. Failing to do so is going to lead you to call about three times as many fouls as you should

As for the POE of which you seem to think I'm in violation. Note it specifically talks about enforcing the rules "as written." You can't ignore 4-27-3 and hope to enforce 10-6-2 "as written."

Back to our hypthetical, what movements is A1 hindered from if he's driving by his defender, even if he gets slapped on the arm on his way by?

Snaq: I agree that it all has to be considered together. It has sounded to me like you weigh Article 3 more heavily than the Federation intends, as expressed in POE #1. Maybe I do, as well, who knows. I have no doubt that you are significantly better than I at judging hinderance. I suspect that it may be easier to judge at the level of play you officate, as well. What bugs me, personally, is when I judge something incidental that I subsequently decide wasn't incidental. That means I passed on a foul, because of my own poor judgment. At this point, the only way I know to minimize that is to tighten up on calls similar to your example until I don't notice it happening. I try to judge for the level of play, right down to the individual match-up. That's about as good an answer as I can give you.

More generally, I buy in to POE #1. They believe we are judging too much contact as incidental. I watch varsity officials doing 3A and 4A games in my area, and I understand what the Federation is talking about. Our board has received complaints from ADs (coaches and parents) about rough play. The Federation talks about "as written," but then leaves the language of Article 3 intact. You could argue they contradict themselves. The thrust of their argument is clear, however. They believe the current level of contact judged incidental is too high. They argue that we encourage illegal contact in so doing, which leads to an excessive level of rough play. You have seemed to me to show no sensitivity to their concerns, but that may be because you are just that good, and their concerns really do not apply to you. How do you answer their concerns, for yourself? Do they apply to you, or not? Do you have any doubts?

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.

:D Anything palatable?

Is that popcorn or beer--or both?

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.

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.

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?

No, POE #1 specifically says "as written," and we've shown you the that you can't rely on 10-6 without referring to 4-27-3 as well.

And this comes with experience. Yes, it gets easier as the players get older, stronger, and more skilled; but it also comes from seeing plays and, frankly, screwing them up. At first, I started by calling everything. Then, I went to far the other way and started letting too much go. I'm still trying to find the right balance.

The other key is a patient whistle. Don't be afraid to watch the whole play and blow late.

You'll find I'm not too concerned about coaches, ADs, or parents complaining about rough play; because in the very next breath, they'll complain that we're taking the game from the kids. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

No contradiction at all. The committee perhaps feels too much is being ruled incidental, but it's still judgment.

I may seem to be disregarding their concerns, but it's because I'm arguing against the opposite extreme (your expressed view). In my view, one of my areas of weakness is actually POE #3 and how it relates with #1. I struggle with letting too much go up high. My other struggle with regard to just #1 is rebounding in the post. I've had a number of players get a rebound while I'm thinking I should have called them for a push. It also relates, I think to illegal screens and such, off ball, that are getting ignored because officials are ball watching.

I don't think it applies to a slap on a dribbler going by his defender for a wide open shot (make or miss); but it applies to the slap on the dribbler that causes him to lose the ball OOB.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on anything. :D

Don't put the popper away, just yet
 

You’ll have to speak for yourself, here. I was never talking about advantage/disadvantage in the context POI. Where he responds to me, you and I were discussing legal/illegal contact (see below).




As in our other, now infamous, thread exchange, I’m merely trying to give voice to the language in the books, so if you choose to respond, try to check whatever unwritten intent you may feel applies, and stick with the text and context of the language, as written. As you know by now, I try to adhere as closely as practicable to the language of the books, so if it isn’t within their text or context, it holds no persuasive value for me.

Personally, I don’t glean the clear, sweeping mandate that you do from Article 3. The primary definition of incidental contact, preceding any Articles, requires two things: 1) that the contact is permitted, AND 2) that it not be a foul. I think we both agree that the “permitted” part is what the subsequent Articles are trying to delineate, in addition to outlying passages such as 4-19-1’s subnote. I think Article 1 can be summarized as describing contact that is essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play. If we drop the clause set out by commas in Article 2, we are left with, “Contact should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.” If we do a little parsing, the drafters’ use of grammar indicates that they are, again, referring to the type of contact previously mentioned--what I summarize as essentially unavoidable contact under the circumstances of competitive play. Then, Article 3 begins with “Similarly,” indicating the same thing, a reference to the type of contact previously mentioned. So, contextually, Articles 2 and 3 are referring to contact that is BOTH essentially unavoidable under the circumstances of competitive play (the “permitted” part of the primary definition of IC), AND also not a foul. They use the word "and" to combine those two.

For the “not a foul” part, we have to look elsewhere in the book for what type of contact constitutes a foul, so, Rule 10. This is where I think you beg the question. You use the Definition of Incidental Contact, which clearly states that it only applies to contact that is NOT a foul, to help you decide what a foul is. In the field of Logic, that is referred to as a circular argument, and is invalid, of course. Fouls are established in Rule 10, not in the Definition of Incidental Contact. Notice that 6-11 of Rule 10 references certain Rule 4 Definitions for assistance in establishing what a foul is, but nowhere does it reference that of Incidental Contact, further indicating to me that the drafters do not want 4-27 qualifying what is and what is not a foul (the first indication being that 4-27 starts out by excluding from the definition of “incidental contact” anything that is elsewhere defined as a foul).

So, textually and contextually, if the books somewhere say particular contact is a foul, then it's a foul. 4-27 only qualifies Rule 10 if the contact was unavoidable under the circumstances AND occurred with opponents in equally favorable positions without hindrance to normal offensive or defensive movement. Slapping a dribbler as he passes in an attempt to dislodge the ball is not only poor defense, it is definitely not unavoidable, and therefore outside the scope of incidental contact AS EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES. This is where I agree with coaches (the better ones, in my opinion) and others in the game who say a foul is a foul, and why I/we think it is far from meaningless.

You suggested my view was extreme, and asked whether I call games according to the letter of the books: of course I don't. That's just not where the game is right now, hence the efforts of NFHS to turn us back. I wish we all did, however, and I think that is what parents, coaches, and ADs are expressing via NFHS through POE #1. Not only do I find the game boring as we presently call it, but it is tedious to have to constantly be trying to determine advantage/disadvantage with respect to contact. As you pointed out, the disagreement among us in that judgment is so vast, we might as well admit it's arbitrary. It would be better and far more consistent to judge avoidable/unavoidable, and let the players adjust--what I believe the Federation is arguing for.

I already know your interpretation/philosophy, so no need to restate it. If you don’t have specific language from the books that you think counters the language and context I am presenting, let’s just leave it there, and see if someone else can provide something fresh. This gets at what I was trying to say regarding philosophy. It has nothing to do with whether I can learn from others in my local association, or elsewhere—of course I can. I was saying that I haven’t found a need for extra-textual philosophies in order to interpret the books. Those in my local association who are willing to stay within the four corners of the books I find great value in.

Can someone sum up what RandyBrown is arguing this time? How did a simple thread with a simple question and answer grow to...this? :confused:

Someday a light will go on for you and years later, you'll laugh back at the time where you just "didn't get it." Till then, I'll just add you to my ignore list. I can't read your novels without getting a headache and I find little value in them, to boot.

Not get it? RecLeague Randy with his vast one and a half year's experience of doing competitive Grade 6 girls games doesn't get it? YGTBKM.

Because people keep trying to argue with this clown instead of just giving him an answer and then telling him that's what it is and if he doesn't believe it, piss off. You can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what you're telling him.

I want to see Randy do a Varsity game and see how long it takes for him to answer a question from the coach. :rolleyes:

Hate to hear his Captain's Meetings.

I mean we (the forum) have had our fair share of arguments and back and forths...but I would figure if someone had that much to type on the subject then there must be something of substance in the post...or maybe not. :confused: I mean there's something to be said about getting to the point and being succinct. For all I know, the very answers to life's mysteries could be contained in those novels but I sure ain't gonna be reading it.

Believe me, you're not missing anything, including life's mysteries. None of his posts involve any actual rules citation. Just a bunch of "dazzle them with bullsh!t" stuff that will get him blackballed as soon he deals with a real HS Varsity coach, or even a decent AAU coach.

My son and I thank you for the laugh. Good stuff! :D

All but my first post in two separate threads have been responses to others' responses to me. The primary reason they are so relatively long is I try to support what I say, otherwise it's just, "You're wrong! No, you're wrong!", and, if someone thinks I'm wrong, I'd like them to see where I'm coming from so that they can point to where I'm wrong, specifically. If I'm responding to numerous members and/or numerous points in a single post, that tends to elongate the post, which is why I separate it by who I am responding to and/or by point. As far as substance, I can only do what I can do.

So, what do you think of POE #1? Where are they coming from, and who is behind it--and why? What are we doing wrong, and what do we need to change, specifically? Who among us are they talking to--obviously, to generate their reaction, it must be fairly pervasive, no?

POE #1 is for those officials who don't know how to read the rule book, interpret it, then apply that rules knowledge on the court. It's also shorter than 90% of your nonsensical posts.

What's that old expression?
 

Never argue with a _______. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience every time.

As I have no intention of engaging in rule-book hermeneutics, I'm going to let you have the last word on this. You've demonstrated that you're not willing to learn, and for an 18 month official, that's not a good thing. I'm going to wash my hands of this, double the size of my ignore list, and drop it. I've simply put too much time into trying to help someone who doesn't want help.

http://www.amightywind.com/prophecyf...fore-swine.jpg

Maybe you can find the original Greek manuscript and go from there.

Except, Maybe, Some Of The More Liberal States ???
 

Darn good thing too, because I think that that's illegal in most states. If it's not illegal in your state, then definitely don't cross a state line while engaging in such activity.

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. :cool: