Rsbq

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The fact that V2 put two hands on H1's back is a pretty good indicator of illegal contact.

MTD, Sr.

And how was H disadvantaged?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

And how was H disadvantaged?

Everybody listen up: The key to this play is the Principal of Verticality.

It does not matter if V2 was jumping over H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back or he was standing next to H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back. V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. See the following:

NFHS R10-S6-A3: "A player shall not use his/her hands on an opponent in any way that inhibits the freedom of movement of the opponent or acts as an aid to a player in starting or stopping."

NCAA R10-S1-A3: "A player shall not use his or her hand(s) on an opponent to inhibit the freedom of movement of the opponent in any way or to aid an opponent in starting or stopping."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everybody listen up: The key to this play is the Principal of Verticality.

It does not matter if V2 was jumping over H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back or he was standing next to H1 when he put his two hands on H1's back. V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

MTD, Sr.

It sounds to me like you rule this an automatic foul.

For me, it's not automatic.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

V2's contact with H1 prevented H1 from standing up within his Cylinder of Verticality.

Granted. How do you know that constitutes a disadvantage in every case?

[Adam]

For the brief moment contact was made, I would have to see an obvious attempt to get upright before I call this foul. Unless he actually prevents A1 from normal offensive movement, I'm letting this go.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For the brief moment contact was made, I would have to see an obvious attempt to get upright before I call this foul. Unless he actually prevents A1 from normal offensive movement, I'm letting this go.

That's how I felt about it.

This is the battle between advantage/disadvantage vs. "he had his hands all over him" or "that HAS to be a foul!" Or, "how can it NOT be a disadvantage with both hands on him?" Of course, some will say B-2 climbed on A-1, but B-2 was so out of control, that he truly did not hinder A-1 (unless A-1 tried to stand upright, which he didn't). I suppose another way to look at it is, "you guys are screwing us if you're allowing THEM to get away with that!"

If a defender is facing a ball-handler with both hands on him, it's a good chance I'm calling a hand check. For me, it's become a lot about what the contacted player cannot do, as a result of the contact.

Or, in a nutshell, it's not the amount of the contact, it's the advantage of it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Once again, the key is H1 was prevented from standing upright within his Cylinder of Verticality

You're assuming H1 wanted to / tried to stand upright during the time V2's hands were on H1.

[Art N]

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.

Mark etal...
What if we have the same play occurring at the offensive end of the floor? Assume A1 beats his man B1 and stops for shot right under the basket. B5 is trying to help out, so he sprints over just as A1 gives a great head fake and sends our superhero, B5 flying by at which point his hand contacts A1 back while he bend over. A1 waits for B5 to fly by, then hits a bunny shot for two. Mark you said it was automatic for you on the OP, so should I assume you are calling it when B5 contacts A1's back in this example too?

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.