Dribbler cuts in front of defender

[JeffTheRef]

"Again, I will be damned if I call a foul on a dribbler that is being followed closely from behind and stops, then gets run over by that defender, then I turn around and call a foul on the dribbler. I am not going to make that call, just like I am not going to call a multiple foul on two defenders that make contact on a shooter at the same time. I do not think that either is good common sense officiating. If you do, so be it. The defender should not put himself in that situation to begin with. But that is my opinion."

The point is exactly that, if B1 is directly behind A1 and THE 2 ARE GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, then contact is a foul on B1. The issue is when, as EXACTLY happened in the game I cited, A1, dribbling, cuts off B1, moving in a different direction, then the foul is on A1. And they shoulda called it - put some integrity back in this moron game. Kansas played with all the intellect of a mollusk.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman

You mean that if a defender is dribbling fast, the defender should never get right behind him? What's he supposed to do, just let the guy leave him in the dust?

I agree, it's a tough call. But if A1 clearly changes his path to cut off B1 giving B1 no chance to avoid contact and then there is severe contact so that both players fall down, are you going to call a foul on B1 who clearly did nothing except run in a straight line? I admit, tough call.. but what would you call Rut?

Z

Yes I would call a foul on B1. And it would not make a difference if he was going in a straight line, or just weaving back and forth behind the dribbler. The defender should not put himself in that position.

BTW, this does happen at the end of the game a lot. I do see dribblers cut off defenders all the time, trying to get away and make getting a foul called (or steal) difficult. And I have never seen anyone call a foul or hold the dribbler responsible for that contact when it happens.

Peace

[zebraman]

Rut,

Sure seems like you're penalizing the defender for doing nothing illegal and taking away their rights as a defender. It would be a tough sell for sure, but when there is a case book play that specifically says to call this on the offense and the defensive player has violated no rule, I don't see how you can call this a foul on the defense. At basketball camp last summer, we were told that the offense initiates contact 40% of the time, yet the defense is called for the foul 90% of the time. They asked us to quit protecting the offensive player so much.

Comparing this to a multiple foul is an invalid comparison. A ref may ignore one of the fouls but the right team still gets penalized.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Mar 30th, 2003 at 10:32 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I'd have to see it, but the chances are very slim that I'm going to call a player control foul in a situation like that. Hard to consider the dribbler to be "screening" in this situation. Rather, it would seem to me to be incumbent on the defender to be aware of where the ball is. It's not up to the dribbler to give the defender time to stop.

Have you changed your mind after reading the casebook play and the play in the NCAA Illustrated Book?

[TriggerMN]

In what year was the rulebook changed so that it was no longer mandatory to use a broomstick to knock the ball out of the peach basket?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Have you changed your mind after reading the casebook play and the play in the NCAA Illustrated Book?

Sigh. Yes, I suppose so. If it happens precisely as outlined in the case, then it can't be a blocking foul. But I think it's going to be pretty rare that it happens that way, with the defender simply continuing in his own path. I would rather no-call this and allow an ugly turnover (as a result of a minor collision with the defender) than call a PC foul.

Having said that, if it unfolds exactly as described in the case, and there is significant contact, then I'd have to call the PC. Blech. U-G-L-Y.

Chuck

[ronald]

Casebook have been sited and a camp instructor has given us some info on who gets called for most of the fouls even though it appears the offense is guilty of some the foul calls.

At the clinic I went to, they used the analogy of cars going in a path. Now let's put the cars in the casebook situation or the one for this situation. Who caused the freaking car accident? Not the poor guy who was driving (running) along minding his own business who was suddenly cut in front of by some other driver who got to some point a split second before you did. Common sense you talk about. Can not get too much clearer. You caused the accident and will pay a hefty price if you gots lots of money for driving like that. Not only that, you could be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide if people were to perish. Let's apply the same common sense to two people on the basketball court where one is running in a straigth path and the other cuts in front of his path. And remember what's the important characteristic to look at in this analogy-not that cars and humans are different.

It's up to the officials to comprehend this action on the court and enforce the penatly correctly. Too many are giving a no call (I have) or calling it on the defense (not me)

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
Rut,

Sure seems like you're penalizing the defender for doing nothing illegal and taking away their rights as a defender. It would be a tough sell for sure, but when there is a case book play that specifically says to call this on the offense and the defensive player has violated no rule, I don't see how you can call this a foul on the defense.

OK.

Originally posted by zebraman

At basketball camp last summer, we were told that the offense initiates contact 40% of the time, yet the defense is called for the foul 90% of the time. They asked us to quit protecting the offensive player so much.

You had to go to a camp to learn that?

Originally posted by zebraman

Comparing this to a multiple foul is an invalid comparison. A ref may ignore one of the fouls but the right team still gets penalized.

Comparing this to a mulitple foul is totally valid. This is something that probably happens about once a game at least, but we almost always decide to call one foul. It does not matter if the proper team is penalized, you could penalize them further or the proper players. And I have never seen this called (ever, ever, ever) when this happens at the end of the game when a dribbler is running around and the defense is trying to foul.

Part officiating is calling what is expected to be called within the game as well as what many of the rules say. As a baseball umpire, if a throw beats a runner to the base, it is expected to call that runner out if he makes a normal slide and the defender makes a normal effort to make a tag. Or the double play situation at second base, we do not nit pick the touching of second. Or the most common thing in basketball, you do not call a shooting foul on out of control shooters. But if that is the way you choose to call the game, so be it. In my parts if I make that call, I might have to T up a lot of people and try to explain something that is total judgement and a rule that is inconsistent with "legal guarding principles" to be the maverick that I would have to be to make that call.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ronald
Not only that, you could be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide if people were to perish. Let's apply the same common sense to two people on the basketball court where one is running in a straigth path and the other cuts in front of his path.

Hey, if I wasn't going to call a PC before, I'm sure as heck not going to call it manslaughter!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ronald



Who caused the freaking car accident? Not the poor guy who was driving (running) along minding his own business who was suddenly cut in front of by some other driver who got to some point a split second before you did. Common sense you talk about. Can not get too much clearer.

In most cases you rear-end someone on the road, the driver from behind is the one penalized. If two drivers are going in the same direction (which is really all that applies here), time or distance in not going to be a factor in who is held legally responsible for a car accident. The law and the insurance company is going to consider the driver that is behind responsible. Cutting off may or may not at all be a factor. But if A is driving and B is behind A and A puts on the breaks and B runs into A, I can bet you B is going to get the ticket.

Originally posted by ronald

It's up to the officials to comprehend this action on the court and enforce the penatly correctly. Too many are giving a no call (I have) or calling it on the defense (not me)

I call probably more offensive fouls than anyone on this board. So I am not there to protect the offensive player. But I am there to call what is expected in the game. And if you call a foul on a defender, most coaches are not going to question that at all. They will get on their player for putting themselves in that position to begin with.

Peace

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge


I call probably more offensive fouls than anyone on this board.

Really? You've seen everyone on this board officiate so that statement actually has some backing (or is it just another one of your claims with no basis)?


And if you call a foul on a defender, most coaches are not going to question that at all. They will get on their player for putting themselves in that position to begin with.

If you're going to ref to make the coaches happy, you might as well just call a travel everytime a play looks funny.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Mar 30th, 2003 at 03:44 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman



I call probably more offensive fouls than anyone on this board.

Really? You've seen everyone on this board officiate so that statement actually has some backing (or is it just another one of your claims with no basis)?

It is called a figure of speech. Yeah, I a have seen everyone officiate.


And if you call a foul on a defender, most coaches are not going to question that at all. They will get on their player for putting themselves in that position to begin with.

Originally posted by zebraman

If you're going to ref to make the coaches happy, you might as well just call a travel everytime a play looks funny.

Who said anything about making coaches happy? When you call the obvious, you want the tape, the knowledgable fans or officials watching to say to themselves, "that was the what I saw." You do not want them to say, "why did that get called?" Just like I would not call a screen that had slight in insignificant contact, I would not call this when not only could a defender avoid this, but getting away from the dribbler to begin with and you are using an obscure situation to call a foul. I never said you could not call this, but should you call this is another thing all together. Probably a concept you have a hard time understanding.

Peace

[ronald]

When you cut in front of someone without taking time, speed and distance into consideration and are the cause of the accident, you are at fault not the guy behind. If your car is ahead of someone by 10 feet, you do not get the right to change lanes and at the same time slow down so the car behind you runs into you and then claim "Oh Johnny was behind me so he is at fault". Well, you can claim it all you want but it won't hold up. Otherwise, could not see any problem or difference with a person who turns left into the lane of incoming traffic that is going 55 and immediately get hit and says he was behind me so it's his fault. I believe the concept of driver behind is at fault has its limitations.

Same principle applies here in basketball imho. If Johnny and Sammy are running down the court parallel to each other and Johnny is a half a body length ahead of him or one step, he does not get the right to cut in front of him and get a defensive foul. Wrong call. Period. End of convo.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ronald

Same principle applies here in basketball imho. If Johnny and Sammy are running down the court parallel to each other and Johnny is a half a body length ahead of him or one step, he does not get the right to cut in front of him and get a defensive foul. Wrong call. Period. End of convo.

And when you call it, you will have to explain that and hope that the people evaluating you agree (with your judgement). I will not be there to help you, nor will anyone on this board. Period. End of conversation.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

JRut can get away with calling this foul on the defense only because the majority of fans, coaches, other officials, and evaluators do not know the correct rule. This is likely due to the fact that as many others have stated it happens so rarely.
Chuck Elias has conceeded after seeing JR's NF casebook citation and NCAA citation that although he thinks it is ugly and he really doesn't seem to agree with it, that the correct call is a PC foul and he will make that call.
JRut on the other hand has taken the stance that he will IGNORE the correct rule and call a foul on the defense anyway. I believe that is irresponsible officiating and that he is doing a disservice to the game by doing this.