The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Rsbq (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/88119-rsbq.html)

bainsey Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:28am

Rsbq
 
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?

JugglingReferee Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:36am

So H secures the ball, and V is sailing OOB?

So.... it's a 5 on 4 and the only contact was that V's hands touched H's back?

The picture you painted to me is obviously not a foul.

mbyron Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:40am

RSBQ is not, of course, in the rules. It's used as a rule of thumb for evaluating disadvantage to a dribbler. Disadvantage caused by contact defines a foul.

Who was disadvantaged by the contact you saw?

Adam Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 822462)
I got to thinking, would RSBQ even apply to situations like this? We don't apply it when someone gets hacked on the arm.

You don't?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:50am

It seems to me that V2 violated H1's Cylinder of Verticality and while doing so made contact with H1, thereby preventing him from standing upright. That sounds like illegal contact to me.

MTD, Sr.

Raymond Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:58am

The RSBQ concept is applied to offensive players in motion. Does the contact by the defender impair the offensive player's rhythym, speed, balance, or quickness? If so, then call a foul.

H1 was standing still. I'm most likely going to judge this by advantage/disadvantage. Did V2's contact prevent H1 from making a play? Did V2's contact cause H1 to travel or step on the end line?

JugglingReferee Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 822474)
It seems to me that V2 violated H1's Cylinder of Verticality and while doing so made contact with H1, thereby preventing him from standing upright. That sounds like illegal contact to me.

MTD, Sr.

What in the OP suggests to you that H tried to stand upright while V was in the cylinder?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 822478)
What in the OP suggests to you that H tried to stand upright while V was in the cylinder?


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

MTD, Sr.

JugglingReferee Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 822483)
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. Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 822485)
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 Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 822487)
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 Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 822487)
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 Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:30am

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:38am

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.

bainsey Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 822493)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1