Play for Discussion No Call or Foul

[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.

[rwest]

After thinking about it from a physics standpoint, I believe I know what is happening. Still not 100% sure because I can't slow it down frame by frame, but the physics works.

Both players are of a similar height and weight so there mass is going to be similar. They are both moving but in different directions. The offensive player is moving faster than the defender. So the offensive player has greater force. However, I don't believe the force from the hip contact is enough to displace the player. Remember, we have to take into account the force the defender is exerting. The force the offensive player is generating has to be sufficiently greater than the defenders to account for the displacement. I don't believe it is. It is however enough to cause him to be off balance. The elbow then causes him to be displaced like he was. That is why it appears to me that the defender gains momentum when contact occurs with the elbow. The hip caused the player to be off balance but it was the elbow the sent the player to the floor.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

After thinking about it from a physics standpoint, I believe I know what is happening. Still not 100% sure because I can't slow it down frame by frame, but the physics works.

Both players are of a similar height and weight so there mass is going to be similar. They are both moving but in different directions. The offensive player is moving faster than the defender. So the offensive player has greater force. However, I don't believe the force from the hip contact is enough to displace the player. Remember, we have to take into account the force the defender is exerting. The force the offensive player is generating has to be sufficiently greater than the defenders to account for the displacement. I don't believe it is. It is however enough to cause him to be off balance. The elbow then causes him to be displaced like he was. That is why it appears to me that the defender gains momentum when contact occurs with the elbow. The hip caused the player to be off balance but it was the elbow the sent the player to the floor.

Good explanation. And I don't think I can disagree with any of it.

So then, was the hip contact legal or not (offensive foul, defensive foul, neither)?. Why?

I think we all agree that the hip contact was not an offensive foul, but was a potential defensive foul that some say is marginal.

Assuming that is not a foul....

Did that hip contact (caused by the defender who was clearly not in LGP) put the defender in a very precarious position where it would only take minor additional contact to send him over the edge? Did the elbow contact really put the defender at any more of a disadvantage or was the disadvantage mostly from being off balance from the hip contact?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Good explanation. And I don't think I can disagree with any of it.

So then, was the hip contact legal or not (offensive foul, defensive foul, neither)?. Why?

I think we all agree that the hip contact was not an offensive foul, but was a potential defensive foul that some say is marginal.

Assuming that is not a foul....

Did that hip contact (caused by the defender who was clearly not in LGP) put the defender in a very precarious position where it would only take minor additional contact to send him over the edge? Did the elbow contact really put the defender at any more of a disadvantage or was the disadvantage mostly from being off balance from the hip contact?

Let me answer with a question. Assuming I have the sequence of events and the physics correct, would the player have gone to the floor without the elbow? I believe the answer to that question is the answer to whether or not we should have an offensive foul. It seems obvious to me that the offensive player was not disadvantaged because he was able to get a shot attempt off. The secondary player may have fouled, but I have nothing on the primary defender. And if we call a foul on the offensive player, then the secondary defenders contact would have been irrelevant. Having said all that, I believe the elbow is what sent the player to the floor and can't be ignored. I have an offensive foul. Remember the disadvantage to the defender was that he was not in a position to rebound the missed shot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

Let me answer with a question. Assuming I have the sequence of events and the physics correct, would the player have gone to the floor without the elbow? I believe the answer to that question is the answer to whether or not we should have an offensive foul. It seems obvious to me that the offensive player was not disadvantaged because he was able to get a shot attempt off. The secondary player may have fouled, but I have nothing on the primary defender. And if we call a foul on the offensive player, then the secondary defenders contact would have been irrelevant. Having said all that, I believe the elbow is what sent the player to the floor and can't be ignored. I have an offensive foul. Remember the disadvantage to the defender was that he was not in a position to rebound the missed shot.

This is where we differ, I think he was going to the floor with or without the elbow, due to the hip contact form his cutting across the path of the offensive player, and the elbow was just the icing on the cake and to call and offensive foul would be bailing out a poor defensive play by a player was late to the spot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rwest

Thinking about it from a physics standpoint.

I took physics in high school. They really helped me to become regular.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is where we differ, I think he was going to the floor with or without the elbow, due to the hip contact form his cutting across the path of the offensive player, and the elbow was just the icing on the cake and to call and offensive foul would be bailing out a poor defensive play by a player was late to the spot.

But I really believe he would not have gone to the floor without the elbow. Again, in real time I'm more positive about this than when compared to slowing it down and reviewing it dozens of times. We don't have that luxury on the court. But I don't see anything that definitely changes my position. I stand with the team control foul.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.