Rsbq

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

JV boys last night. Loose ball near the end line; I'm the lead (2 man).

H-1 secures the ball while bent over. V-2 has both hands on H-1's back, and is flying over H-1 and out of bounds. Looks ugly, and H partisans are screaming for a foul, but H-1's rhythm, speed, balance, and quickness are NOT affected. In other words, he can easily play through the contact. I yell to keep playing (very seldom do I talk with a whistle in my mouth), and we move on.

I got to thinking, would RSBQ even apply to situations like this? We don't apply it when someone gets hacked on the arm. Where does one draw the line, if any, at application?

While it a HTBT to know if you should have whistled a foul or not, I don't see why the need to tell the players to keep playing. Also could you describe the play a little more detailed? What was V2 doing that caused him to leap over H1? Did he leap completely over him like in "leap frog"?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JugglingReferee, MByron, and Snaqs:

I edited my OP to include the relevant NFHS and NCAA rules.

Yes it is an automatic foul.

As I have already stated, V2 put his two hands on H1's back while violating H1's Cylinder of Verticalty thereby preventing him from standing up. To use the words of the actual rule: V2's contact inhibited H1's freedom of movement.

We certainly do not wait to see if H5's FGA is succesful before calling a Foul in the Act of Shooting against V5 do we?

MTD, Sr.

Mark, you're completely ignoring 4-27-3 (NFHS),

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

We may be seeing this play differently, but I'm picturing an airborne B1 whose hands are on A1 for all of .5 second as he flies out of bounds. A1 is neither moved nor prevented from moving.

No, I don't wait to see if the shot is successful, but I do wait to see if it's affected. Don't you?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am puzzled by how many people think it is okay to bail out V2 for making illegal contact with H1 when the illegal contact is the result of V2 playing out of control.

Once again, the key is H1 was prevented from standing upright within his Cylinder of Verticality by V2's illegal contact. We do not have to have H1 attempt to stand upright, V2's contact prevented H1 from standing upright.

MTD, Sr.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I got to thinking, would RSBQ even apply to situations like this? We don't apply it when someone gets hacked on the arm. Where does one draw the line, if any, at application?

Although I'm thrilled that the concept of RSBQ & SDF is finally being applied at the HS level, but it seems as though its being applied or interpreted incorrectly.

RSBQ - Deals with a ball handler, generally on the perimeter.
SDF - Deals with a would-be shooter on drives to the basket, below the FT line extended.
Advantage/Disadvantage - Everything else falls under this, from the sound of the OP it doesnt seem like anyone was disadvantaged... play on!
Possession consequence or clean up - This applied to rebounding situations.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

While it a HTBT to know if you should have whistled a foul or not, I don't see why the need to tell the players to keep playing. Also could you describe the play a little more detailed? What was V2 doing that caused him to leap over H1? Did he leap completely over him like in "leap frog"?

Kids should be coached to "play the whistle" so I agree there is no "need" to say keep playing. But I have had a few occasions where some weird looking things happen where kids kind of freeze for a nano second and look at you and I've said something like, "we're good" or "play." And they instantly turn and keep playing. Seems to work though again, it's a rare occurrence.

I would also like to have some more details on the play. From how I envision the play based on the OP sounds like a no call to me. I think MTD's argument of verticality, freedom of movement, and automatic foul here is flawed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am puzzled by how many people think it is okay to bail out V2 for making illegal contact with H1 when the illegal contact is the result of V2 playing out of control.

Once again, the key is H1 was prevented from standing upright within his Cylinder of Verticality by V2's illegal contact. We do not have to have H1 attempt to stand upright, V2's contact prevented H1 from standing upright.

MTD, Sr.

Just like with an illegally moving screen, you don't have a foul unless it actually prevents the screened player from getting through. If the defender doesn't attempt to get through, it's nothing.

Again, maybe I'm seeing this differently than you, but if A1 isn't affected in the slightest, I don't see the point of calling a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Although I'm thrilled that the concept of RSBQ & SDF is finally being applied at the HS level, but it seems as though its being applied or interpreted incorrectly.

RSBQ - Deals with a ball handler, generally on the perimeter.
SDF - Deals with a would-be shooter on drives to the basket, below the FT line extended.
Advantage/Disadvantage - Everything else falls under this, from the sound of the OP it doesnt seem like anyone was disadvantaged... play on!
Possession consequence or clean up - This applied to rebounding situations.

Sorry, but these are all just different ways of saying "advantage/disadvantage," which is just another way of wording 4-27-3.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, but these are all just different ways of saying "advantage/disadvantage," which is just another way of wording 4-27-3.

Agree that they are all concepts born from advantage/disadvantage and 4-27-3.

But I don't see the need for the "sorry." These terms simply further break it down and make it easier for many to teach and understand application of 4.27.3 in relative situations. What's wrong with that?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark, you're completely ignoring 4-27-3 (NFHS),


We may be seeing this play differently, but I'm picturing an airborne B1 whose hands are on A1 for all of .5 second as he flies out of bounds. A1 is neither moved nor prevented from moving.

No, I don't wait to see if the shot is successful, but I do wait to see if it's affected. Don't you?

Snaqs:

I am not forgetting NFHS R4-S27-A3. As I just stated in my last post, we do not have to wait to see if H1 will attempt to stand upright, V2's contact prevented him from standing upright.

Regarding to see if the shot is affected let me pose this play to you:

A1 is running down the court and catches a pass (with both hands) while in the air (while both feet are off of the floor). Before A1 returns to the floor, B1 hacks (its a good hack, one that everybody in the next county can see, ) A1 across the arm but does not cause A1 to lose control of the ball. A1 then lands on his right foot (now his pivot foot), which he then jumps off of and then lands on his left foot, which he then jumps off of and then releases a FGA which is successful. What do you have?

MTD, Sr.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Also could you describe the play a little more detailed? What was V2 doing that caused him to leap over H1? Did he leap completely over him like in "leap frog"?

More like past him. V2 definitely contacted H1 with both hands, but again, H1 wasn't trying to get upright.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am puzzled by how many people think it is okay to bail out V2 for making illegal contact with H1 when the illegal contact is the result of V2 playing out of control.

Once again, the key is H1 was prevented from standing upright within his Cylinder of Verticality by V2's illegal contact. We do not have to have H1 attempt to stand upright, V2's contact prevented H1 from standing upright.

MTD, Sr.

The OP makes absolutely no mention of whether A1 attempted to stand up straight or not...if he made no effort to straighten up, then B1 did not prevent him from standing upright within his "Cylinder of Verticality".

You are making assumptions not backed by the OP.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Snaqs:
As I just stated in my last post, we do not have to wait to see if H1 will attempt to stand upright, V2's contact prevented him from standing upright.
MTD, Sr.

This is an assumption not supported by the person who witnessed the play or any information he's given regarding the play.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The OP makes absolutely no mention of whether A1 attempted to stand up straight or not...if he made no effort to straighten up, then B1 did not prevent him from standing upright within his "Cylinder of Verticality".

You are making assumptions not backed by the OP.

It does not matter whether or not H1 attemtped to stand upright within his CV, V2's contact prevented him from doing so.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It does not matter whether or not H1 attemtped to stand upright within his CV, H2's contact prevented him from doing so.

MTD, Sr.

So what? Was the player put at a disadvantage?

Sounds like he didn't travel and it didn't stop him from continuing play, so I'm inclined to let it go unless the contact is severe.

Or as my friend would say: "Game interrupter."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Agree that they are all concepts born from advantage/disadvantage and 4-27-3.

But I don't see the need for the "sorry." These terms simply further break it down and make it easier for many to teach and understand application of 4.27.3 in relative situations. What's wrong with that?

I just don't like (personal issue perhaps) the implication that RSBQ and SDF are somehow different concepts.