let the play finish?

[jkumpire]

I like the responses on this thread, but I have one question for you:

Isn't making a call like this an open invitation to more pushing and shoving and rough play?

Because if the rebounder misses the shot, and then you play on, you have just told the player who pushed off that you can get away with doing it. Also, now the person who misses the shot now believes it was the uncalled foul that caused her miss, and she is going to play more physical at her end.

This kind of thinking can lead to more fouls in the long run, and maybe even exploding tempers and physical harm in rare cases. And we have not even talked about the coaches in this yet.

The Fed rules committee every years speaks about rough play and how they want the game called. As I read the committee, this kind of foul needs to be called in their opinion. Are they right?

Comments please.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I like the responses on this thread, but I have one question for you:

Isn't making a call like this an open invitation to more pushing and shoving and rough play?

Because if the rebounder misses the shot, and then you play on, you have just told the player who pushed off that you can get away with doing it. Also, now the person who misses the shot now believes it was the uncalled foul that caused her miss, and she is going to play more physical at her end.

This kind of thinking can lead to more fouls in the long run, and maybe even exploding tempers and physical harm in rare cases. And we have not even talked about the coaches in this yet.

The Fed rules committee every years speaks about rough play and how they want the game called. As I read the committee, this kind of foul needs to be called in their opinion. Are they right?

Comments please.

First thought: what's more likely to encourage the behavior?
Passing on a call where the pushed player got the rebound, or calling a foul and taking away an easy basket?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

First thought: what's more likely to encourage the behavior?
Passing on a call where the pushed player got the rebound, or calling a foul and taking away an easy basket?

Waiting for a second thought.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Waiting for a second thought.

4-27-3 should be taken into account:

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

If A2 got the rebound, the question could be asked; what movements were prevented by the push? Typically, I like to hold my whistle when the "right" player gets the rebound, but if the displacement is significant or the play is getting rough, I might grab one where the offended player got the rebound or the basket went in.

If the players somehow take that as permission to start pushing, start getting them if you feel you need to reign it in.

The last thing I want to do, though, is to reward a player for pushing by taking an easy bucket away from his opponent. This is like calling the defender for a slap on the arm as the dribbler blows by him for a wide open chip shot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Isn't making a call like this an open invitation to more pushing and shoving and rough play?

Pushing and shoving need no invitation.

Because if the rebounder misses the shot, and then you play on, you have just told the player who pushed off that you can get away with doing it.

What exactly did he get away with? Consider the definition of a personal foul.

Illegal contact which hinders a player from performing normal offensive or defensive maneuvers.

A player trying to rebound was pushed. He got the rebound anyway. Was he actually hindered? No is the rule, but there are exceptions. Without seeing the OP,which might show otherwise, my thought is no call.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I like the responses on this thread, but I have one question for you:

Isn't making a call like this an open invitation to more pushing and shoving and rough play?

Because if the rebounder misses the shot, and then you play on, you have just told the player who pushed off that you can get away with doing it. Also, now the person who misses the shot now believes it was the uncalled foul that caused her miss, and she is going to play more physical at her end.

This kind of thinking can lead to more fouls in the long run, and maybe even exploding tempers and physical harm in rare cases. And we have not even talked about the coaches in this yet.

The Fed rules committee every years speaks about rough play and how they want the game called. As I read the committee, this kind of foul needs to be called in their opinion. Are they right?

Comments please.

This is why there is a distinction between fouls that you have to call to prevent the game from going down the tubes, and fouls based on advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes, only experience tells you what those fouls are.

[APG]

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would have simply told the coach I didn't consider the contact a foul because she played through it and had a wide open shot. I don't have any second thoughts on these, either. If she misses a wide open layup, why should I feel guilty about letting her take it?

Exactly. And any coach that doesnt understand that hasnt been doing this very long and will probably be yelling if you did blow your whistle, "hey you just killed our fast break."

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

I've been told the same thing. I like JAR's responses on incidental vs illegal.

When applied correctly, I don't think advantage/disadvantage or "seeing the whole play" is a double edged sword at all.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

Its a thing of beauty when the entire crew follows this play calling guideline for rebounds.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Play: A1 attempts a two-handed, over-the-head crosscourt pass. As she releases the ball, B1 contacts her on the forearm with an open palm ("smack"). The pass is still released. If we paused the action right here, the official judges the contact to be incidental, especially given the level of play and the calls that night. Resume action. The pass floats, and B2 intercepts the pass.

Question: Is it too late to go back and get a foul on B1?

I think those plays should be handled as SDF plays. When he got smacked on the pass, the play wasnt over yet.
Turnover, the play is over, slap caused a disadvantage... late whistle.
Hits the mark, the play is now over, slap didnt cause a disadvantage... the clock runs.

Never too late to get it right!

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

[tref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

Like Ragu, its in there! 4-27-3

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

Credit to Snaqwells post 13:

4-27-3 should be taken into account:

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

If the player in question secures the rebound, and contact by the opponent didn't fold him in half, (clean up rough play) how was he hindered?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by KCRC

...
In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

That's the art of officiating, knowing how to properly incorporate this philosophy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

The rule talks about being hindered from performing normal defensive or offensive movements. We normally call that advantage/disadvantage, but often times we consider displacement to be sufficient. On rebounding situations, the idea is that in most cases, if the right player gets the rebound, it's incidental. OTOH, if the push moves the opponent too far off his spot....

How far is too far? That is a matter of judgment, and sometimes we have to adjust based on game circumstances.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Sometimes, only experience tells you what those fouls are.

Agree. Well put.