Rsbq

[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?

[JugglingReferee]

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]

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

[Adam]

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.

You don't?

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.