NFHS:

A1 goes up strong to the hoop...B1 is standing under the basket perfectly still...A1 dunks...comes down on B1, knocking B1 to the ground.

Whatta ya got?

Dude

Assuming b1 had legal guarding position before a1 went up, its a PC foulf on A1.

Whistleblowers answer is correct by rule.....But not sure that I would call it....Just by opinion

If B1 is "under the basket", it's a no-call all the way!

Players cannot stand underneath the goal and not expect to have contact if A1 dunks. If A1 has a clear path to the hoop, he is entitled to shoot and land however he wants. If B1 is in his way, that's his problem.

Look at what the NBA did with the semi-circle around the hoop; the rationale is the same, except the NBA put the "no-foul zone" even further away from the hoop to account for the athleticism of the players.

My goodness.

Exactly - which is precisely why they stand there.



Sure, but we can call a foul if he contacts an opponent who has legal guarding position.



If by "his" you mean A1, then I'm in full agreement with you.

I tend to look at this like the game of chess - you can "prevent" a player from moving into a space by putting your knight in a position to capture any piece moved into that square. B1 is allowed to position himself such to force A1 to alter his (A1's) course - it's no different 10 feet out from the basket as it is under the basket. If A1 is not willing to change his direction: PC foul.

C'mon "Big Dogs"....don't be timid ;)...how do you call it?
By rule...or by "common sense"? (Is that a loaded question or what? :)

BTW...I called it a PC last Friday night...worst call of the season...IMO! You should of heard the screams...whew!!

Dude

And that is why it is not a foul in the NBA, but it is a foul in NCAA and Fed -- I thought someone quoted a case book play calling this a foul some time back. Just because you dunk doesn't make it OK to run through someone to do it.

Sorry guys, gotta agree to disagree on this one.

We're (or at least I'm) not talking about running over someone in the process of dunking. Think about it: B1 stands UNDERNEATH the basket. A1 goes in to dunk, clear path all the way...he dunks...and the only reason B1 gets hit is because A1 HAS to land SOMEWHERE. To me, that's lousy and/or stupid defense. A1 SHOULD NOT be penalized for this. If defender is standing IN FRONT of the hoop, absolutely call the PC, but not if he's UNDER the basket. That's a terrible foul, IMHO.

If A1 dunks, and makes some concerted effort to knock over some guy just to be a dork, boom, nail him. If he dunks, does the trapeeze and knocks a guy over six feet away, nail him. But rewarding B1 for standing right underneath the hoop is not good, IMHO.

Yo,Canuckrefguy!

Read NFHS casebook play 10.6.1SitD. Also read NCAA rule 4-8-1AR6.

Unless you are refereeing in the NBA,are you in the habit of ignoring plainly written rules to do your own thing?

How do you justify your call/no call to a coach/evaluator/observer/etc.?

I ain't a big dog,just an old dog!:D
http://www.gifs.net/animate/history.gif
I think that the best way to handle this situation is to run it by your rules interpreter,whether it's for your local high school group or for a college conference officiating staff.They may prefer that it be called looser than the language in the appropriate rulebook.They may want it called right by the language.The key is having it called uniformly in your area by your group. If the coaches/players know what to expect,they shouldn't have any complaints.Where you always have problems is when it's a charge one night,and a no/call the next night.JMO.

It may not be good in your opinion, but it's the rule in high school. If your local associtaiton calls this differently, that's their business, but don't tell people on this board not to call it based on your own personal viewpoint. It's good defense, and it's PC, wipe the basket, and give the ball to B. The crowd goes wild either way, so that's not important. What matters is getting the call right, and rewarding good defense. Remember this little mantra, "High school rules, coach, high school rules!"

How can A1 have a clear path if B1 is in his path?
The only reason B1 gets hit is because A1 chose to jump even though B1 was in his path.
As Mark D. said, it is the essence of good defense to place yourself in the path that the opponent wants to take. B1 is attempting to force A1 to stop and take a somewhat more difficult short jumper. Increasing the difficulty of your opponent's shot, to me, is great defense.

Great points, all...

But I wish I could illustrate the play in question as I am visualizing it, I have no doubt many of you vets out there would no-call it all the way.

The only implication I object to is the idea that my view is some gross perversion or thumbing-of-nose at the rules, or that I pick and choose the rules I apply and officiate accordingly. Ask yourself...do I call every travel, every slap, every bump? Are there collisions that "are" no-calls?

FYI, where I come from, we play NCAA rules.

Great Debate, though!

in a nutshell.....
 

In high school ball, our common sense should tell us this, but if it does not, our rule book certainly does. When you jump up in the air, it is your responsibility not to land on your opponent if he was there first, no matter what you were doing while you were up there.

This is the point! On this board, if you're using other than NFHS rules, you should say so the first time you post. Of course, when NCAA rules make this a no-call, it's a no-call. In the NFHS, except for a few areas, it's PC every time. When newbies read this board, they need to understand that high school rules are not the same as what they see on TV, and that they should be calling the system they are assigned under. When you encourage them to think that basketball is only played by your system, it is confusing at best. Please don't muddy the waters, by giving the impression that yours is the only right way. Especially on the calls that are likely to make or break a ref, and that bring huge reactions from the crowd, it's important that the new person know clearly what the rules are and how they should be applied. This board is generally for NFHS rules, unless otherwise stated.

Sorry....

It's my first chat board!

The NCAA rule that I quoted(R4-8-1AR6)gives you guidance on how the NCAA wants this type of play called(for men's play,anyway).Basically,you were ignoring this NCAA rule,and you were choosing to make up your own definitive rule,based on your own personal preference.You can get yourself in deep doo-doo following that slippery slope. JMO.

The NCAA rule that I quoted(R4-8-1AR6)gives you guidance on how the NCAA wants this type of play called(for men's play,anyway).Basically,you were ignoring this NCAA rule,and you were choosing to make up your own definitive rule,based on your own personal preference. [/B][/QUOTE]

*SIGH*, sorry to drag this out, but....

Rule 4, Section 8, Article 6:

"...When the ball goes through the basket before contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay..."

Seems to me if A1 dunks, then hits B1, it's a no-call unless the contact was so severe that B1 can't get up in a timely fashion. The intent of the rule seems to be to penalize a layup/dunker who creates EXCESSIVE contact after the made basket, with a defender who's under the hoop. Judgement here would be on a case-by-case basis and could go EITHER way, and often does.

Article 7 (Women):

"B1 is standing directly under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1. RULING: B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1."

This leans more towards my position of the shooter in this situation NOT being at fault.

I am certainly guilty of not communicating well enough in this thread. But to say I am ignoring the rule or making up my own rule based on "personal preference" is inaccurate.

I know I'm new around here, and I will always defer to the more experienced stripes, but I deserve better than that.

Rule 4, Section 8, Article 6:

"...When the ball goes through the basket before contact occurs, the contact shall be ignored unless B1 has been placed at a disadvantage by being unable to rebound when the shot is missed or unable to put the ball in play without delay..."

Seems to me if A1 dunks, then hits B1, it's a no-call unless the contact was so severe that B1 can't get up in a timely fashion. The intent of the rule seems to be to penalize a layup/dunker who creates EXCESSIVE contact after the made basket, with a defender who's under the hoop. Judgement here would be on a case-by-case basis and could go EITHER way, and often does.

Article 7 (Women):

"B1 is standing directly under the basket before A1 jumps for a layup. The forward momentum of airborne shooter A1 causes A1 to run into B1. RULING: B1 is not in a legal guarding position. Blocking foul on B1."

This leans more towards my position of the shooter in this situation NOT being at fault.

I am certainly guilty of not communicating well enough in this thread. But to say I am ignoring the rule or making up my own rule based on "personal preference" is inaccurate.

I know I'm new around here, and I will always defer to the more experienced stripes, but I deserve better than that. [/B][/QUOTE]1)The original post in this thread said that the shooter knocked the defensive player down after dunking.You said it is a "no call" in every case,no matter whether the defensive player is now unable to put the ball into play without delay.You never have a foul on the shooter,no matter what.That is contrary to the rule that you quoted above(AR6).Wouldn't you call knocking someone down creating "EXCESSIVE contact" too,Btw?
2)Womens AR7 says it should be a blocking foul.You say it is a "no call" instead.
3)You now say above "Judgement here would be on a case-by case-basis and could go EITHER way,and often does".That's completely different than the stance that you originally took-i.e.it's never a foul on the shooter.

Comments?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2003 at 05:08 AM]

My comment is that it is nice to see you arguing with someone besides me for a change!

My question is in a play like this what is the contact? Does he bump him and would b1 have a fair chance of getting the rebound if he was in position to do so? Or does a1 knock him off the court? I am looking at the type of contact in this play. If we have a crash and one or both players get knocked over, not a flop, I have PC. If they both bump or if b1 flops, play on.

Agreed...as I said in my last post, definitely my fault for not communicating my thoughts correctly. The big difference between talking with someone and posting in a chat room, something I am not used to.

My intention was to say that in these "under the basket" situations, PC foul is sometimes but NOT ALWAYS the right call (such as the original situation stated which I still maintain was one where shooter should not be penalized).

My other point was that we officials constantly massage the rules, apply/do not apply them, according to the natural flow of the game, and this may be an example of that.

As Jim Rome says....[B]"I am out".[B]

My intention was to say that in these "under the basket" situations, PC foul is sometimes but NOT ALWAYS the right call (such as the original situation stated which I still maintain was one where shooter should not be penalized).

My other point was that we officials constantly massage the rules, apply/do not apply them, according to the natural flow of the game, and this may be an example of that.
[/QUOTE]Good points!I can see a little bit better now where you are coming from.

In NFHS rules,which you don't use and aren't used to,the play where an airborne shooter knocks a defender(in a legal gaurding position) down when he returns to the floor is usually called an player contol foul.The rules state that that is the way that the play should be called.
NCAA rules give an official more latitude,and allows them to use more judgement in deciding whether to call something or not.IMO,if someone is getting run over big-time,you're usually better off calling the appropriate foul rather than no-calling it,though.

Canuckref, I was pretty much right with you until you said. . .

I wish Rome's show would go "out". Permanently. :(

Chuck

Your name wouldn't be Chris, ERRR, Jim Everett, would it?

Mark,

I could not have said it better myself. Well done.

MTD, Sr.

No, but that kind of crap is exactly what I hate about "Romey". He and his callers spend the 3 hours trying waaaaayyyyyyyyy too hard to be clever and just aren't smart or funny enough to pull it off. How many times can you say "Have a take. . . and don't suck" and have people think that's good enough to carry a show for 3 hours a day?!?! I just can't stand the stupid show.

Chuck