With 2:17 to go in Syracuse/Auburn, I thought I saw the perfect case, rarely see, even more rarely called. Anyone else agree. The freshman point guard for Syracuse, trying to take time off, dribbled into the front court and cut in front of the defender giving the moving defender less than a step to stop. Shoulda foul on Syracuse . . .

Did the defender stop?

(If so, no foul - even though he didn't have to stop.)

Was there contact?

(If not, no foul.)

The dribbler'c cutting in
 

didn't give the defender time to stop. In this case, I believe, the interpretation is that this is the equivalent of action away from the ball, where time and distance are always relevant. Foul was called on the defender. It should have been on the dribbler.

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.

Chuck

I agree with Chuck, The defender did not beat the dribbler to the spot.

I do not have my rule books in front of me. But if one goes to the personal foul section of Rule 10, as well as the definitions of guarding and screening in Rule 4, in both the NFHS and NCAA rules books, one will find the information to make the correct call in this play.

The first thing to remember is that the definition of guarding applies to the defensive team only. The definition of screening applies to all ten players on the court. That means defensive players as well as offensive players can set screens (both legally and illegally). Rule 10 also states that the screening rules apply to the player in control of the ball as well as a player who is not in control of the ball.

For the sake of argument lets change the play so that it reads as such: A1 is dribbling the ball in a straight line down the court with B1 following directly behind A1. It can be said that B1 is guarding A1. If A1 suddenly stops and B1 runs into A1, B1 has committed a personal foul.

But the original play is not as simple as the play that I described in the previous paragraph. B1 is moving in a straight line down the court. He cannot be considered to be guarding A1. A1 dribbles across B1's path and causes B1 to run into him. This is a blocking foul on A1. He took a position in front of a moving player (B1) and did not give B1 time and distance. This would still be a blocking foul by A1 if he moved into B1's path and stopped there. A1 must give time and distance to B1 when setting a screen.

Duck!!!
 

Yes Mark, there are multiple fouls in the rulebook too, does not mean I am going to call it. This is not simply good common sense and only looking for trouble, no matter how you explain it.

Peace

JefftheRef,
I think you make an excellent point. That said the vast majority of officials are not going to call anything out of the ordinary. These people are the ones who are worried about standing out.
I did not get to see this play due to regional coverage. If it happens in your game, my advice is to call what you believe is right and hold your head high.

Re: Duck!!!
 

JR, this has nothing to do with multiple fouls. This is a simple play regarding the guarding and screening rules that are in the rules book.

If you make that call, you will still need to duck.
 

Multiple fouls are in the rulebook, and I am not trying to call that. So because you seem to think that you could call a screen on a player with the ball, then call that. But I think it does not make good common sense, especially in the play described. Because if a dribbler runs in front of a defender, I do not think it is a good call to call a foul on the dribbler. I guess then you could say it is a foul in a dribbler is ahead of a defender and stops, you should call a foul on the ball handler no matter what. Not very good common sense. To me that is looking for trouble.

Peace

Re: If you make that call, you will still need to duck.
 

JR, read my orignal post and you will find the answer to you play above because it is the play that I used for the sake of argument.

But what far too many people (coaches, players, fans, Billy Packer, and officials too) forget is that the ball handler does not have carte blanche on the basketball court. The rules were changed regarding this back in the 1950's (read the NFHS Basketball Handbook).

In 31 years of officiating I have only called a player control foul for blocking (illegal screen) on the ball handler only twice. Why, because it happens so rarely. Because it happens so rarely, an official should not call it? Absolutely not. Because the ball handler should not be given an advantage that he is not entitled to just because far too many people do not understand the rules.

Re: Re: If you make that call, you will still need to duck.
 

My comments have very little to do with what coaches, players, fans and especially what Billy Packard thinks.


I agree with you about screening principles as it relates to a ball handler. As a matter of fact there was an NCAA play on their video tape that showed a foul called by a stationary ball handler (not dribbling). So I agree with you about a screen. But I do not agree that a active dribbler should be called for a blocking foul because he cut off a defender. I do not think that is a good common sense play to call. I have not read a casebook play (which to me is the most important thing) that backs up your interpretation. All I read you saying is that this should be called based on some obscure wording and reading into the wording and apply it to a very specific situation. If the rule makers had that in mind, then they should at the very least put that in the casebook to have us all understand that interpretation. I just find your interpretation a stretch.

If anyone wonders why I am so against NF tests to determine officiating ability or rules knowledge, this is a perfect example why. Because what you are doing is trying to make something fit that might not be they way the rules people intended. You are using wording to try to connect two different situations.

Peace

But I do not agree that a active dribbler should be called for a blocking foul because he cut off a defender. I do not think that is a good common sense play to call. I have not read a casebook play (which to me is the most important thing) that backs up your interpretation.
[/B][/QUOTE]NFHS casebook play 10.6.2SitB-COMMENT- "Screening principles apply to the dribbler who attempts to cut off an opponent who is approaching in a different path from the rear.In this case,the dribbler must allow such opponent a maximum of two steps or an opportunity to stop or avoid contact." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Just looked up the NCAA reference for the same play:
http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...basketball.pdf

Look at bottom of Page 129 of NCAA Illustrated Book. "Diagram No. 1 illustrates the players moving in parallel paths and in the same direction.Both players had their legal paths established.Diagram No. 2 shows No.4 dribbling into the path of No.5 without giving No. 5 sufficient time and distance to stop or change direction." The call is "Player Control Foul by No. 4". Again,pretty straightforward.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 29th, 2003 at 09:24 PM]

Common sense.
 

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.

Peace

Re: Common sense.
 

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

Mr. Rutledge:
 

"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.

Re: Re: Common sense.
 

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

Rut,

Sure seems like you're penalizing the defender for <b>doing nothing illegal </b>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 <i> one of the fouls </i> but the right team still gets penalized.

Z

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

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

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?

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

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)

The way the game is played.
 

OK.

You had to go to a camp to learn that?

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

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

Have you been in one of these accidents?
 

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.


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

Re: Have you been in one of these accidents?
 

[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]

I do not think you understand what "calling the obvious" means.
 

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

<i>
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. </i>

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

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.

You will not get help.
 

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

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.

Well Jr, if I was being evaluated by IAABO board 12 and I called it correctly, they would have no problem with the call since they specifically went over situations of this nature.

Chuck has rarely seen it if I recall it correctly. So hopefully I will not have to make that call ever. I agree that most would not understand it and I would most likely feel pretty lonely out there.

Actually, I had a play similar to that early this season. Defender was going down the lane in his path and the offender was trying to beat him. Defender jumped in his vertical plane while the offender jumped into the defender making considerable contact. Called a PC and sure enough felt awkard.

Last time I did that this year. Had a couple others but no called them. Afterwards, wished I had called a PC. I thought I had cheated myself as an official. I believe thae when you make tough calls correctly, your confidence grows and you grow as an official and the next time you see the same play the call is easier.

We already do it.
 

If we were to have a discussion about 3 seconds, I wonder how many here would call it the way the rules state it(actually 3 seconds, not 4, 8 or 10 as many have stated here as their personal requirement).

If we were to talk about multiple fouls, I already know of how many people have claimed they have called it and why (This happens at least once a game, funny I have never seen it called).

If we talk about the many scorebook situations that could cause a T, I know many that try to avoid being entirely strict as it states in the rulebook. Because if this situation we are talking about now is a disservice, all these other philosophies are a disservice as well.

I will expect the next conversation we have about those other rules I stated, you will come out and say the same thing. But my guess is, that those examples and many not specifically mentioned will not fit your point of view at the time, and you will say nothing or support your own philosophy on how you would handle those situations. This is one of the many reasons that individuals that actually played the game at some point of their lives, tend to benefit in ways that others that never played do not. Because when you play the game, certain things are expected of you as a player. I do not think any defensive player would be upset if you called a foul on them or even claim "he did not give my those two steps" as their argument. Now I do not know too many officials on blind screens nit pick the "step" because part of the expectation of a blind screen, is to have teammates warn you when being screened. And no different in the rules of verticality on rebounds, am I going to penalize a player for jumping over another player and his opponent did not "box out" or put a body on anyone. All these are judgement calls, but there are things that are going to influence my judgement on these things. A defensive player putting himself in that position is one for me on this particular play.

Peace

That is a great point.
 

Probably the best point you made. You belong to a board that I do not belong to. I do not answer to IAABO in any way, shape or form. So what IAABO Board 12-25 thinks means little or nothing to me.

And this past year in my state, I had an incident where a coach wrote a letter to the assignor of the conference about a call I had made which resulted in me giving my only Technical Foul of the year on a coach. In this coaches letter, he talked about "other officials did it this way." Well the problem is, he was talking about officials that belong to associations that I was not a member of. And when I talked to my partner's about the situation and just this week explained it to the members of one of my associations, everyone agreed with my point of view. And at the end of the day, you have to do what they do in your parts, not what they do in other associations or boards. ;)

Peace

Rut,
You make some good points in your response. I should also say that you have made some good points in this entire thread. It stands out to me as one in which you have argued rather coherently and intelligently. Sorry to say that I believe many of your other posts have degenerated into name calling and cryptic remarks.
I'll admit that I agree that most of the better officials do not use the correct 3 second rule and I'll concede that we do try to handle administrative matters without the severest of penalities being given.
I'll even throw the traveling rule into the mix with those. However, those are violations and administrative matters. They are a bit different than contact/fouls on the court. Right?
To me your example about using discretion when it comes to rebounding situations is the most analogous. I feel that there is considerable room for an official to use discretion in these mobs that occur under the basket and in the ensuing scrambles for the ball and you rightly point this out.
However, I am going to make the point that it seems to be more justified to officiate in this manner in situations like this where neither team has possession. In a situation where there is clearly a dribbler and a defender, I believe there is little justification for not making the correct call when contact occurs.

Heaven help you if this play ever occurs at a time where it is a real game breaker and you are being observed or evaluated. When it is discovered that you knew the rule, saw the whole play, and purposely made the wrong call based on some philosophy you hold, I believe you will be finished in that conference/association or with that assignor.
Just my thoughts, and again you are right that for the good of the game we don't follow all the rules exactly. We simply disagree on this particular case.

JRut,
To further support your administrative T point, Texas just failed to have all five players return to the floor following the time-out with 18 seconds left as they were going to inbound. The officials didn't call a T, but told Texas to get the guy's butt off the bench and onto the court. We agree they ignored the rule on this and the game was better for it.

It may, but more likely will not.
 

Well if I move to the Pacific Nortwest or I work in a conference that advocates this practice, you might be right on many levels. But you also have to do more than just call things that are rules as written, you have to call things that are obvious and easily understandable. And in my experience there are many things that we know the rules, but do not apply to the letter to stay hired in those conferences. And when they changed the rules on 3 seconds and an interrupted dribble in NCAA Rules, we were told by an assignor, "not to go out making this call." You can call it ignoring a rule or not, but that is what this assignor said to officials that work for him. The rest is up to you.

Peace

All of you who support this as a PC blocking foul, then you should call it that way when it happens as a player cuts into the blocks in front of a defender who is running straight to block but is a 1/4 step behind. In my experience, even if the defender holds her line, if the ball handler gets 2 inches around the defender and goes up for the layup, the shooter gets the call. This happens all the time, unlike the instance you cite), and is always a block on the defense because they did not get to the spot. And that's the way I expect it to be called. Get in defensive position, or suffer the consequences.

Thank you for making this point.
 

Peace

You just cited a completely different situation,Coach.The one that you cite above is covered under a different rules citation too-casebook play 10.6.2SitA.There's a difference between converging paths and parallel paths,and that's why there's a casebook play covering each DIFFERENT situation.NCAA rules make the same distinction.

I am not talking about converging paths. I am talking about a dribbler that is moving along the same path as the defender, then takes that extra big step and turn to launch themselves past and in front of the defender, in the process drawing contact that appears to come from behind. The ballhandler initiates, the defender is called, every time. And I will always teach players to do that on offense until I see it called different - which means I will always teach them to do it :)

There's different rules for dribblers and shooters too,Coach.Most good officials will look for the shooter who jumps into a defender.In my experience,the play that you are describing above very rarely has parallel,STRAIGHT LINE paths,which is the situation that JeffRef described originally.The defender usually alters their path while playing defense,or is approaching the dribbler at an angle(even if it is slight),which bring the "guarding" principles into play over the "screening" principles.

The two casebook plays do a good job of spelling out the difference,and also why they are supposed to be called differently.

If you have to go to that extreme to explain the situation to justify how good of a call this is, then you need to leave it alone. Because we are making distictions between straight lines and altered paths. So how much of an altered path are we going to consider there to be for us not to call a PC Foul on the dribbler? So when I call a foul, am I going to draw a line from point A to point B to determine if the defenders path was straight or not? I knew that Geometry class would come in hand someday. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/teach.gif

I really do not mean to sound coy, but that seems like splitting hairs to me. You know darn well the coach is not trying to suggest the difference between a straight line or an altered path. He is basically saying that a dribbler, going to the basket is not and has not bee called for a foul, not in the process of shooting, but slows down and gets run over by the defender who did not get "two steps" to stop or alter his path.

Good, now you gave me more ammo to not call this at all. I will just say that the defender altered his path. Just like in 3 seconds, "his foot was not on the line coach."

Peace

If you go back and read the posts ,you will note that I am telling you exactly what the rulebooks-NFHS and NCAA-say.Nothing more-nothing less.I have not told you,or anyone else,how you should personally call it,or how I would personally call it.If you want to ignore both these rulebooks,be my guest.Call it any way that you want to.I could care less.That was never my point.The original point that you made that I responded to was YOUR assertion that this play was NOT covered in the casebook.It is covered explicitly,and I gave you the rules citations to prove it-both FED & NCAA.

JeffRef's original post was correct,by rule.Do you dispute that? If you do,please cite the rules that will back your dissent up.My assertation is that the plays that I cited back Jeff up.

OK


In the NF Rulebook it is a comment, not a specific play. The comment basically says that you should apply screening principles to a dribbler. The NCAA Reference is what it is. Calling 3 seconds in the lane was a new rule this year when an interrupted dribble is taking place. I was told by two college assignors to not make this an issue. But then again, I guess I should be a maverick and call this anyway. :rolleyes: It is in the rulebook?


I do not dispute anything having to do with the rule or where it is located. My dispute or assertion is that this is not only hard to sell, but not good common sense. Because in your own words, everything has to be lined up perfectly in order to make this call in the first place. Not because I said so, because it would take the judgement (and this is important here) I would have to consider all these things to happen perfectly to make this call. And all I ever said was I would not be the one to make this call. And I would do whatever to not make this call. Just like a multiple foul (and no one seems to want to address this) happens almost every single game I have ever officiated, and I do not see you talking about, "Well it is in the rulebook. How can you deny it is in the rulebook?" But as I said before, everything in the rulebook, National Federation or NCAA, does not mean you should go out of your way to call it. It was not called in this particular NCAA Men's Regional Final, but I do not hear you talking about the officials did not know the rule. I do not hear you being condesending to the officials that did not make this call in a game we all had a chance to see on National Television. But you want to say, "I gotcha" to prove something you claim you do not care about. My only point was that this was a stretch. And when I read both citations in the rulebook, I still feel that it is a stretch to call this. If you think this is proper call it, but I am not.

Peace

Re: The way the game is played.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

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.

Even when the tag is on the runner's head and the runner's
butt is resting on the plate? So that was you at the game last week!:)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

And if you call a foul on a defender, most coaches are not going to question that at all.

I see this as a really, really, really broad statement with, let us say, numerous exceptions.

Re: We already do it.
 

Regardless of how you call this play, your comparisons are still invalid. The 3-seconds and multiple foul situations you cite are examples where a ref may do a non-call or only call one of two possible fouls on the offending team. With the situation this post addresses, you're not talking about ignoring a situation nor penalizing the team in another way (or less). You're talking about penalizing a <b>defensive</b> player for an illegal movement by the <b>offense.</b> I may choose to no-call this (have to see it), but I can't imagine giving a foul to the defense for an illegal offensive act. It seems prudent to ignore 3-second violations that don't matter or using common sense to choose the first foul that happened rather than calling a multiple foul, but when we penalize the <B>wrong team </B>because we don't like a rule, that seems to be going a bit far, IMHO.

Z

And your point is?
 

And I disagree with you. I guess so did the officials on the game today.

Peace

I hav called this foul several times over the years.
Yes it is rare. And I have not called it if the dribbler merely stops and is overrun by the defender. I call it if the dribbler moves into the path of the defender. And guess what? It doesn't just happen at the Pro or College level.
I called this foul just last week in a 5th grade AAU game!
The point guard that the foul was against, was quite advanced for his age, but I still couldn't believe it at first. In fact, it was in front of my partner, but right in front of the defending team's bench. The dribbler took a quick peak over his shoulder to see the defender, then changed his direction, and hip-checked the kid OOBs.
No call from my partner, so I called it.
Later I talked to him about the play in this manner.
"Let me tell you what I saw, and tell me if you agree or not." I explained the same thing I just explained here ,and he agreed with me that that is what happened. He just hadn't seen it before, and was probably a little stunned that a 10 year old would make such a play.
This is a legitimate PC foul,and to not ever call it because you may (WILL) have to explain it to a Coach, isn't a valid argument. IMO