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?

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.

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?

You don't?

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.

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?

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.

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."

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

For me, it's not automatic.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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, :D) 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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." :D

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

I disagree, B1 can't prevent an opponent from doing something he isn't attempting to do. Nothing you can do or say right now is going to prevent me from going to Ohio this weekend; because I'm not trying.

Gotcha.

I see it as the same concept applied to different situations but realize that, for whatever reason, not everybody sees it that way.

Quality, meaningful whistles... I Love It! We dont like GI Joe :D

Snaqs, you're exactly right, just another way of wording 4-27-3.
But the principles, if followed correctly, gives us a reference to make the correct call in different situations/areas on the court.
The guidelines are just that, guidelines.
Sometimes guidelines can be quite vague, the principles are more defined.
JMO

Sorta like the football official who calls an offensive hold, but the defender is standing right there allowing himself to be held. :rolleyes:

Give it another 2-5 seasons & they'll buy in! Especially once we get the RA in HS.

Agreed, but using the terms in contrast with one another leads to the perception that they're somehow fundamentally different. I'm probably being overly persnickety, though.

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

Heaven forbid....

Its hard enough to get people to call a PC foul around here. We don't need to give them another out.

How can one be "prevented" from doing something that one isn't even trying to do??? That makes no sense and is a ridiculous statement.

Oh my, you dont like that either? Snaqs it's really a beautiful thing!
Just like RSBQ & SDF, the RA takes the art out of our thought process & makes it more of a science.

I disagree. The criteria for this are pretty clear. While there's an art to officiating, that applies more to game management and when to make certain calls (like letting a few travels go to benefit a team losing by 50). It doesn't apply to B/C calls. That's about knowing how to identify LGP.

I respect your stance, but when a 2ndary defenders foot is in the RA there is no need to know LGP. Thats beautiful, IMHO!

It might make it easier in this instance, but I don't like the idea of taking away this defensive tactic. I know some (you included) think it's not a legitimate tactic, but I think it's a fair strategy to take away the shooter's path to force him to take a different shot than he wants.

Besides, then you have to learn to identify secondary vs primary defenders as well as other aspects of the rule that determine whether it applies.

I'd go to say that most don't feel like it's a legitimate tactic...at least in the eyes of the rules makers. NFHS is the only major level not to have an RA now (NBA, NCAA, and FIBA).

And we kind of already should know the difference between primary and secondary defenders...especially on block/charge plays to the basic and working in 3-man mechanics.

The stated reason NCAAW adopted the RA was NOT "because it's not a valid defensive tactic" but "to increase scoring". So, I'd say they thought it was "too good" of a defensive tactic.

Well I stand corrected with regard to NCAA-W. At every other level, I've read/heard that either formally or informally, many felt that standing right near the basket wasn't "legitimate" defense...and why part of the rule states that defenders are allowed to jump up, in an attempt to block the ball, whilst in the RA since that is seen as playing "legitimate" defense.

Whatever the reason is, how many people are buying tickets to see the p/c call or good defense?
People are coming out to basketball games to see the scoring, particularly the high flying dunks.
Defenders taking charges at the rack is quite dangerous to airborne athletes.

If I didnt want to see points scored when I'm working, I could just go do baseball :D

That's not quite the concept of prevention: otherwise, it would be impossible to prevent measles in someone who wasn't trying to catch it.

The concept you want here is not prevention but obstruction or hindrance, which does require an effort and an opposition.

And anyway, you might not be trying to go to Ohio this weekend, but you know you want to! ;)

Snaqs:

I agree with you 100%.

MTD, Sr.

The NCAA reason for adopting the RA proves that the people who adopted it do not have a clue as to the rules of basketball concerning LGP.

MTD, Sr.

Snaqs:

Why would you want to come to Ohio this weekend. It is cold and dreary. I should think that you would prefer a place like Hawaii or the U.S. Virgin Islands. :D

MTD, Sr.

I agree. It is same up here in NW Ohio.

MTD, Sr.

You sound like Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D. :D

MTD, Sr.

hmmmm, what if...
 

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?

:D

That is perfect! (just like Sheldon Cooper!)

Lets get back on point.
 

H1 bent over to pick up a loose ball. I willing to bet dollars to donuts that the first thing he would do is stand upright. I seriously doubt he would hike the ball through his legs to a teammate (even though I did see this happen in a girls' game once, :D). The point is that V2 violated H1's CV and made contact with H1 that prevented him from standing upright.


A better example would be this play:

A1 dives for a loose ball and gains control of the ball while laying prone on his stomach on the floor. From this postion A1 can roll (this would be considered a pass by rule) to A2 who is standing a few feet in frong of him. B1 who was trying to out race A1 to the ball lands on top of A1 but this contact does not prevent A1 from rolling the ball to A2, which he does almost immediately after B1 lands on A1. Foul on B1 or not?

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I have to get ready for a game with Mark, Jr., tonight. Have a good evening guys and gals.

Art N:

Yes, but it is not a foul in the Act of Shooting. It is a Common Foul.

MTD, Sr.

The ol' "nice move kid & great head fake as well, now take it out & try it again" call?

Well, seeing how B1 landed ON top of A1 I have a foul. This play is much different than 2 hands in the back of A1. Sometimes the contact is so egregious that we cant overlook it.

Have a great game tonight!!

I really feel you must be envisioning a different play than everyone else MTD.

There it is.

When you consider the pools of college vs. high school officials -- and their corresponding experience -- I think you're going to find it much tougher for high school officials to identify a secondary defender, especially considering there is no such definition.

I still don't see the point of the RA, anyway. If you obtain LGP after the shooter leaves the floor, by rule, it's a block.

If you're the off ball official, especially in 3-man, you're already identifying primary and secondary defenders...especially when dealing with block/charge plays and who takes the play in cases of double whistle...at the high school level (in fact at all levels).

And I'm quite sure if/when the rule is ever implemented, NFHS will define primary and secondary defenders.

I think you guys are putting too much into something you already unknowingly do.

You're T & A1 shakes B1 & gets by him on a drive to the rack...

Are you still looking at B1 or do you find the next guy that could hurt you??
-----------------------------------------------

You're the L & A1 shakes B1 & gets by him on a drive to the rack from the Cs area...

Aren't you in the paint identifying that next defender??



We should be picking up 2ndary defenders at any level we currently work.

Except there's a definition of secondary defender in the NCAA rulebook. Could easily be copied into the NFHS rulebook if they wanted to.

I'm not a fan of B1 putting himself in A1's landing spot. To me, it's dangerous and B1 could've just as easily stepped up and established LGP in many circumstances.

I like the RA, but I don't think it's a no brainer to call in some circumstances.

Help..what is SDF..stand for??

Start...Develop...Finish. More camp-speak: see the whole play.

Start
Develope
Finish

Right, and unless A1 is kicking his legs on the way (which doesn't happen), it's always a block, period. Be it primary, secondary, or quinary defender, it's a block. For that reason, I still don't get what the RA accomplishes.

It deters the defense from attempting to take charges in the 3'/4' RA.
Reduces potential injuries to the offense & defense in the heart of the paint.
Promotes scoring.

No, it's not -- if you're currently calling NFHS rules. I call that a PC foul every time. However, I'd be happy if they change the rule to match the NCAA/NBA.

Are we on the same page here?

If a defender establishes LGP after a shooter leaves the floor, and contact takes place, by rule, it's a block.

They may have stated that....but underneath it all, it was about scoring.

Yes, it is a byproduct of the rule...one that I'm guessing most people are happy with. Offense puts butts in the seats, defense wins championships. ;)

Not if Team A is in the bonus.

MTD, Sr.

That's not what the rule is. The rules say the guard is responsible for the contact in that situation. The contact must hinder in the opponent from preforming his normal movements for it to be a foul.

These same concepts of principal of verticality and moving within it can apply to what fans call over the back. Now we all know its not a foul, but if B1 puts his arms over A1's back shouldn't you call a foul because A1 might have jumped and B1's arms in A1's vertical space prevented it.

Just saying. It is a slippery slope if you are going to call fouls on what a player may have been prevented from doing if he had tried doing it. Call what did happen and not what might have happened. This is a good no call if there was no displacement. What if this had happened in a 1 point ball game with 10 seconds and the player could have passed the ball up ahead to a waiting team mate for the winning bucket? If you call the foul when the player was not disadvantaged then you prevent them from possibly winning the game. Incidental contact is defined as contact that does not rise to the point of a foul and does not prevent a defensive or offensive player from performing his/her duties. This is a paraphrase of course, but that is basically the idea of incidental contact. It seems like this was just incidental contact, unless you are of the opinion that "two of anything" in contact with the player with the ball is ALWAYS a foul.

A defender can't establish LGP after the shooter leaves the floor, so your statement makes no sense.

tref,
Great questions. If I was T, I would stay with my defender (B1) and (this would be part of our pre-game) and let L get secondary defender. If I am able, try to pick up secondary defenders as T, but the crew is putting the responsibility on L for the secondary defenders.
The second one, I hope that I am rotated (given the time that A1 was able to shake B1), but if not, yes, secondary defenders with primary whistle from the L, secondary whistle from C and T.