Play for Discussion No Call or Foul

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Blue #1 didn't exactly get mauled during this play (I realize you're speaking generally, though). But again, even if he did as far as I'm concerned the elbow would have to be dealt with. If his coach didn't like it I'd have no problem explaining my thought process but my explanation would start with, "Coach, #1 hit the other kid with an elbow."

When I first saw the clip I had an issue with the elbow. The more I look at it, the more I think Blue #1 did it on purpose to clear space as opposed to being an involuntary action.

I had a screen shot I made of the middle of that play but I seem to have misplaced it...perhaps on my other machine. It shows blue coming over white's leg (in mid-stride) and side to get to the position where the elbow could make the contact it did. And prior to that, long before the elbow is involved, white is reaching across blue to hold him from cutting...then the elbow comes up to get that arm off of him.

A defender doesn't get to fly into an opponent and get bailed out because the contact happened to involve an elbow...one that was never extended....it was just there. It didn't knock the player over, the hip/body contact was already doing that.

To call the elbow rewards a defender who was out of position, late to the play, and illegal in more than one way. The elbow is easy to see and is an easy way out....but not the right call.

How many times do we (correctly) get accused of getting the 2nd, sometimes bigger, foul because it gets our attention, even though it was a reaction and retaliation to the first one. In this case, that is the 2nd foul (maybe even the 3rd). And, short of it being ruled intentional, is nothing since the first foul(s) made the ball dead.

[JetMetFan]

I sent the clip to one of my mentors who I respect a great deal. He also happens to be a longtime IAABO interpreter as well as an IAABO life member. Here are his thoughts:

"...this is a team control foul. White defender is entitled to his position on the floor. Blue 1 completely displaces white defender to the point that the defender cannot participate in the rebounding sequence after the try. This player has been placed at a disadvantage (Tower advantage/disadvantage philosophy) therefore I would not hesitate in calling a foul on Blue 1. You should not have a "no call" on this play in my opinion."

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I sent the clip to one of my mentors who I respect a great deal. He also happens to be a longtime IAABO interpreter as well as an IAABO life member. Here are his thoughts:

Your mentor needs to learn what legal guarding position is - "two feet and facing the defender" ... this player never has it. The defender is the one that goes diving / leaning in to try to steal the ball and it is his own actions that cause him to go to the floor.

No way that this is an offensive foul.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Brad

Your mentor needs to learn what legal guarding position is - "two feet and facing the defender" ... this player never has it. The defender is the one that goes diving / leaning in to try to steal the ball and it is his own actions that cause him to go to the floor.

No way that this is an offensive foul.

Brad, I'm sure he knows. He's been doing this much longer than me.

You'll notice he didn't mention LGP in his explanation. All he said was White #22 was "entitled to his position on the floor." You can be the "victim" (for lack of a better term) of a PC/TC foul without having LGP if the offensive player does something like kick his/her leg out or, in this case, extends his/her arms.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Brad, I'm sure he knows. He's been doing this much longer than me.

You'll notice he didn't mention LGP in his explanation. All he said was White #22 was "entitled to his position on the floor." You can be the "victim" (for lack of a better term) of a PC/TC foul without having LGP if the offensive player does something like kick his/her leg out or, in this case, extends his/her arms.

The problem with that argument is that he was moving to a new position on the floor...and one to which he was not entitled by any rule. The only position he was entitled to (since he didn't have LGP) was the one he was vacating to cut off his opponent.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that argument is that he was moving to a new position on the floor...and one to which he was not entitled by any rule. The only position he was entitled to (since he didn't have LGP) was the one he was vacating to cut off his opponent.

None of that gives the offensive player the right to elbow the defender out of the way, which is what happened. The elbow caused the player to go down.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Brad

Your mentor needs to learn what legal guarding position is - "two feet and facing the defender" ... this player never has it. The defender is the one that goes diving / leaning in to try to steal the ball and it is his own actions that cause him to go to the floor.

No way that this is an offensive foul.

No it is the elbow that caused him to go to the floor and not having LGP does not give the offense a pass on contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I sent the clip to one of my mentors who I respect a great deal. He also happens to be a longtime IAABO interpreter as well as an IAABO life member. Here are his thoughts:

The defender was moving, so his 'position on the floor" doesn't exist as far as something to which he's entitled. He did not have LGP, so he isn't entitled to be moving, either, at the point of contact

I had a play last weekend, A1 driving and B1 slides in and commits a blocking foul. Just after contact, A1 extends her elbow in a push to get B1 off. I call the block.

B coach gives me the elbow motion as I'm reporting the foul. I walk close enough to tell him that the push occurred after the blocking foul. Are you saying I should have ignored the block and called the push?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The defender was moving, so his 'position on the floor" doesn't exist as far as something to which he's entitled. He did not have LGP, so he isn't entitled to be moving, either, at the point of contact

I had a play last weekend, A1 driving and B1 slides in and commits a blocking foul. Just after contact, A1 extends her elbow in a push to get B1 off. I call the block.

B coach gives me the elbow motion as I'm reporting the foul. I walk close enough to tell him that the push occurred after the blocking foul. Are you saying I should have ignored the block and called the push?

Not at all. If the elbow was judged as something to be addressed then call a T for the deadball contact. Calling a T doesn't do anything to take away the common foul.

I'm not saying everyone has to ignore the contact from White #22 in the OP. What I'm saying is I didn't think it was worthy of a foul call so LGP doesn't become an issue. It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. Since I didn't have a foul on White #22 the contact by Blue #1 - from my perspective - would be a PC/TC foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Not at all. If the elbow was judged as something to be addressed then call a T for the deadball contact. Calling a T doesn't do anything to take away the common foul.

I'm not saying everyone has to ignore the contact from White #22 in the OP. What I'm saying is I didn't think it was worthy of a foul call. It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. Since I didn't have a foul on White #22 the contact by Blue #1 - from my perspective - would be a PC/TC foul.

Ok, I'm trying to follow you here. Are you saying if someone had called the block on white, they should have called a T on blue? If that's the case, you should be calling an IF on blue even without a foul on white.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Not at all. If the elbow was judged as something to be addressed then call a T for the deadball contact. Calling a T doesn't do anything to take away the common foul.

I'm not saying everyone has to ignore the contact from White #22 in the OP. What I'm saying is I didn't think it was worthy of a foul call. It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. Since I didn't have a foul on White #22 the contact by Blue #1 - from my perspective - would be a PC/TC foul.

And THAT says that if you were to call a foul on White #22, then you would ignore the elbow since you've just said it was only a PC/TC foul and not an intentional/flagrant. If it were intentional/flagrant, it would be so regardless of whether you call a foul on White #22. You don't upgrade it to an intentional just so you can call something on it. It is intentional/flagrant if it is intentional/flagrant.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And THAT says that if you were to call a foul on White #22, then you would ignore the elbow...

But...I already said I wouldn't call a foul on White #22 so that point is pretty much moot.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with that argument is that he was moving to a new position on the floor...and one to which he was not entitled by any rule.

Part of NFHS 4-23-1 says every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. And I know the rest: provided they get there first without illegally contacting an opponent. If it's judged that White #22 didn't commit a foul it follows that, in my eyes, he got there without illegally contacting an opponent so he's entitled to that spot.

I think that's where the whole "no call" argument goes away - for me. To say it's a no call, then by definition both players got to the spot without making illegal contact. Fine. The next step, then, is Blue #1's elbow which, IMO, is definitely illegal contact so that's my foul call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

But...I already said I wouldn't call a foul on White #22 so that point is pretty much moot.



Part of NFHS 4-23-1 says every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. And I know the rest: provided they get there first without illegally contacting an opponent. If it's judged that White #22 didn't commit a foul it follows that, in my eyes, he got there without illegally contacting an opponent so he's entitled to that spot.

I think that's where the whole "no call" argument goes away - for me. To say it's a no call, then by definition both players got to the spot without making illegal contact. Fine. The next step, then, is Blue #1's elbow which, IMO, is definitely illegal contact so that's my foul call.

The point that you made that betrays the conclusion you're trying to make is " It's also my feeling the elbow by Blue #1 needed to be dealt with regardless of what was or wasn't called on White #22. " That statement is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. This statement says you think the elbow was an intentional foul. But then you don't call it an intentional foul. You can't have it both ways.

And I've yet to figure out how a player who went over his opponents shoulder and leg to get to the ball and to get into a position to be contacted by an elbow got to the spot first. He was late to the spot...not really even close. Do you normally allow defender the privilege of climbing over their opponents shoulders to get to the ball? I guarantee you that if the elbow element were removed from this play, you and nearly everyone else would have a defensive foul. The elbow is a red herring.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

But...I already said I wouldn't call a foul on White #22 so that point is pretty much moot.



Part of NFHS 4-23-1 says every player is entitled to a spot on the floor. And I know the rest: provided they get there first without illegally contacting an opponent. If it's judged that White #22 didn't commit a foul it follows that, in my eyes, he got there without illegally contacting an opponent so he's entitled to that spot.

I think that's where the whole "no call" argument goes away - for me. To say it's a no call, then by definition both players got to the spot without making illegal contact. Fine. The next step, then, is Blue #1's elbow which, IMO, is definitely illegal contact so that's my foul call.

Not necessarily. The only player who is disadvantaged by this contact at all is #22 white. If he's responsible for the contact, a no-call is absolutely proper. We no-call all the time when the disadvantaged player was the guilty party.

If, as you stated, you need to deal with that elbow regardless of what is called on white, then by definition you have an intentional foul. If you have a foul on #22 white, then any call on blue would be ignored unless it's intentional.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I had a screen shot I made of the middle of that play but I seem to have misplaced it...perhaps on my other machine. It shows blue coming over white's leg (in mid-stride) and side to get to the position where the elbow could make the contact it did. And prior to that, long before the elbow is involved, white is reaching across blue to hold him from cutting...then the elbow comes up to get that arm off of him.

A defender doesn't get to fly into an opponent and get bailed out because the contact happened to involve an elbow...one that was never extended....it was just there. It didn't knock the player over, the hip/body contact was already doing that.

To call the elbow rewards a defender who was out of position, late to the play, and illegal in more than one way. The elbow is easy to see and is an easy way out....but not the right call.

How many times do we (correctly) get accused of getting the 2nd, sometimes bigger, foul because it gets our attention, even though it was a reaction and retaliation to the first one. In this case, that is the 2nd foul (maybe even the 3rd). And, short of it being ruled intentional, is nothing since the first foul(s) made the ball dead.

Its hard to tell 100% but it appears to me that the defenders body gains momentum when the elbow contacts him. The elbow doesn't have to be extended to cause displacement. Not in this case. That's because the offensive player is moving to the basket. The arm, although stationary in relation to his body, is still moving. Physics 101. This causes a transfer of energy which causes the displacement. Had the elbow not been extended I don't believe the player would have been displaced as much as he was. I've slowed this video down as much as I can many times and can not still 100% determine if the hip was the greater cause for the displacement or the elbow. In real time, I have a foul. If it takes me slowing this play down frame by frame to convince myself otherwise, then I can live with my call on the floor.