Play for Discussion No Call or Foul
 

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laJ5NWBopzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not the best camera angle...I have one question...where is the center going to officiate?

Foul
 

I would've been willing to let Blue #1 get away with it if his elbow hadn't come up. It looked like that's what sent the defender flying.

I am not convinced either way. We cannot see who was in position for the ball. Just because the defender goes flying does not mean he was fouled. It looked like a loose ball and they came together. The elbow I would need to see a closer angle or a different angle to judge if that was even a factor. I do not think that would have knocked down the player with just that elbow. And if he was, that kid needs to get in the weight room.

Peace

Foul!
 

I would be ok with the C getting this. It is not in his PCA, but the Lead had a competitive match up right in front of him. When the pass occurred he looked to have been blocked. C needs to get this in my opinion.

I got nothing here. If you watch the defender's path it never really varies from where he would have gone if he never would have fell down. If he was pushed by the offensive player, then his path would have most likely changed. With seeing the defender's slide be on the same line as his steps prior to contact, I got no call here.

Ugly, but no call.

Really?
 

You believe the defender would have ended up on the end-line if there was no contact? The contact occurred about 3 feet below the free throw line and he ended up on the end line. He went at least 10 to 12 feet. He would not have ended up there without the contact and he wasn't falling until contact was made.

I have nothing. Two guys going for a loose ball. Agree on the "ugly" part.

From this angle I can't see the amount of contact, if any, from A1's arm to B1's torso. It also appears just as likely that B1 tripped from tangling feet with A1.

Nothing, as well.

Not a charge: 1 Blue was playing the ball without an outstretched limb touching 22 White, and 22 White had nothing resembling LGP.

Not a block: The contact simply didn't hinder 1 Blue.

That's what I had, but I can't tell if the offense pushes from this angle with this resolution. From what I can see, two players go for the ball with equally advantageous positions. This happens regularly, and it's not a foul.

IF anything, I have a foul on white 22 (the defender, "B").

This was not a loose ball play, it was a pass directly form one player to another.

The first contact was the B22 going through the offense to try to get to the pass. B22 also wasn't anywhere near LGP when the two came together. He was trying to guard a moving opponent without the ball and is required to be in the path and facing the opponent giving time and distance for the opponent to stop or change directions. He didn't. He was never facing the opponent at any time. He was just coming into the path at the time of contact and went partially over/through the blue player. He failed to meet the requirements of LGP in several ways. Just because you're going for the ball doesn't absolve you from meeting the requirements of guarding.

Given that this is how the play started, I'd have absolutely nothing on the elbow unless it were intentional....and it if was, I'd still get the first foul to go with it. I think the elbow was merely a reflex to getting run into, not a positive act.

And the bolded "IF" above is intended to mean that I'd likely let the shooter play on and score since he secured the ball in an advantageous position. If he had lost the ball instead, it would be a foul.

+1 what he said.

Agree with Camron. If anything I have a blocking foul on the defender but since he did not disadvantage the offensive player, I have nothing.

Easy Peasey Lemon Squeezy ...
 

Player control foul on Blue #1.

Without saying it in my original post BNR got what I was getting at with his response...

Well said.

No call on the player going to the floor -- two players going for the ball, plus a bit of a flop imo.

I do have a foul on the shot though -- defender hit/held shooter's elbow as he is shooting.

Laying on my couch while watching this play on mi iPhone....I've got nothing here (of course my angle/positioning isn't the best - but comfortable as hell!!!!)

These two posts sum my thoughts completely on the play.

I do not have a blocking foul on 22 white (for not giving time and distance to a player without the ball) because 1 blue was not disadvantaged.

After 1 blue raised his arm and illegally contacted 22 white, his arm continued to rise up into 22 white's space. It is unclear to me if 1 blue had the ball at this point, so I am going with a common team control foul on 1 blue.

I'd suggest that blue was disadvantaged by being put in a position to react by raising his arm to fend of a defender who was in an illegal position. The only reason blue's arm was even an issue is because white was coming over his shoulder in an attempt to play the ball. It is whole unjust to penalize blue for this arm given how it developed.

I honestly didn't even think about the first contact (which most everyone is discussing) and was more focused on the contact on the shot/defender in the restricted area. :p

The 2nd defender was legal. It appears that he was fully vertical and, as such, was allowed to have his arm in that space when the shooter's jump brought their arms together. The defender is not required to yield the vertical space just because the shooter creates contact there.

RA not an issue either once the shooter paused, dribbled, and turned for a short jumper. The 2nd defender became the primary defender once the shooter's path stopped and changed direction.

Two wrongs don't make a no call
 

Raising a arm to fend off a defender is not legal regardless of how that defender got there. If you think there was a foul going over his shoulder then call the foul then but if you pass on it you can't allow the offense to displace a defender. And he was displaced. No way that was a flop as someone else has stated.

You have to get the first foul. If you pass on it, you really can't tag the other person for responding to it and call it the right call.

And BTW, the displacement had zero to do with the arm. That arm barely touched him. It was merely there. If you look carefully, the displacement had to do with the defender's hip running into the hip of the offensive player as he tried to squeeze by him. You can tell because the defender's body first moved away and was bent at the hip level. If it was the arm, the defender would have been pushed over from the top.

I don't know why so many want to make this play about something it isn't. This defender was late to the spot and there was a collision first. The arm is secondary.

Agree to disagree
 

The defender was bent at the hip level because he was running. The contact with the arm was not insignificant. It's simple physics. The offensive player was running forward. His arm is moving at the same speed as the rest of the body. When contact occurs the energy is transferred to the defender. Again simple physics. Also, the defender's movement is consistent with contact in the upper torso. He would not have been pushed over because the contact was lateral and not in a downward trajectory.

I admit that after slowing the film down, I'm not as convinced it was an offensive foul, but in real time I have no problem with a team control foul. Just because the defender does not have legal guarding position does not give the offensive player the right to displace him.

My thoughts exactly. I like to watch the video before reading any comments so I am not influenced and I hadn't a clue the outside contact was in question. Now knowing that and with the aid of watching instant replay several times, I still got nothing there. Player in white is clearly off balance attempting to steal the pass. Not only is he on one foot at the point of contact but he is reaching out with the opposite hand. Absolutely any contact is going to send him to the floor.

I agree with Camron...that arm out had nothing to do with the defender going to the floor. The contact that sent the player to the floor was caused by the offensive player's hip after the defender tried to reach a loose ball from a less advantageous position.

You normally see people run while bent sideways at the hip while running?

Simple physics, yes. The arm was only significant in that it happened to be between the two players when they initially came together and any potentially fouling contact with it occurred after the body/hip contact that was already sending the defender on his way.

The reaction of contact at the hip level vs. chest level is different. The defender's body response was consistent with hip-level contact...it moved away first at the hip level. Lateral contact up high will cause the exact opposite effect. This even more evident when you see how the defender landed...basically on his butt with his torso upright and facing the offensive player. Getting pushed over by the arm would not create that result. It would have sent him down in a completely different manner.

You basically had two bodies moving that came together. To be moving at the time of body contact, a defender must have LGP...he wasn't in A1's path, he wasn't facing A1, and he was moving towards A1. If he doesn't have LGP it is a block. Very simple. Arm contact after that doesn't matter.

Actually contact can matter if the defender doesn't have LGP. Even under the RA restrictions the offense can be called for a PC/charge in certain cases:

I don't have time right now to look for the citations appropriate to this play under NFHS and NCAA but it seems to make sense that a player from Team A can't put an elbow into a player from Team B just because the Team B player hasn't established LGP.

She Blinded Me With Science ...
 

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
The rule you cite is certainly valid, but doesn't really matter if it is the 2nd contact.

In THIS play, the defender first contacted the offensive player who then might have used his arm to push him a little. The main contact was when the defender came through/over the offensive player to get in a spot for the arm to be relevant but he was already going down due to the body contact. The arm is just a distraction. It may be the easiest thing to see, but it isn't the right call.

This, obviously, would be where we differ. I see the intial contact as simultaneous with the second contact being the elbow.

If you have it as the defender making first contact that's cool but I don't think you ignore the elbow. It made, IMO, significant contact with the defender and put him to the floor. He probably got there a little faster because he was off balance but, again, I can't ignore the elbow flashing out to create space.

So what's your call? PC? DF? Block?

So, you're saying the elbow was 2nd to contact. So the initial contact makes the ball dead and the elbow doesn't matter.

During a dead ball (which the first contact causes), it doesn't matter unless you're going to make it intentional. And if you don't decide to call the first contact as a foul, it would really not be fair to call the 2nd contact a foul.

Foul on the offensive player. That was my first post early on :)

I'll clarify: instead of simultaneous I should've said incidental regarding the first contact. My mistake there. At any rate, going back to my first post on this - the second after the video was put up - I said I would've been willing to let things go if I hadn't seen the elbow come up.

Also, why wouldn't it have been fair to call the second contact a foul? The offensive player shot out an elbow that made contact. It's hard to let that go, dead-ball contact or not.

Even if I had felt the defender commited a foul when the players first came together in the lane I would've had a tough time letting the elbow go unpunished.

Why? Because it was a response to the defender coming into him in a way that was not legal. You may have ruled it incidental in its direct effect but if it draws that reaction from the offense, it really isn't incidental any more. You have to judge the whole play, not the parts in a vacuum.

Which is what I'm doing. There's no level of contact. illegal or otherwise, that justifies putting an elbow into someone's chest.

Watching it in real time, I had a Team Control from the C position, probably a Team Control from the L position.

I didn't think he had the ball for player control, but couldn't tell with the video.

Watching it a second and third time, I'm okay with a no call. As the contact looked more incidental as I watched it more.

On the shot attempt, I have a no call. So basically, I'm fine with this ugly play and the two no calls that the officials had.

But since we officiate in real time, i would have blown and punched it up north, from the initial contact.

Maybe not, but I think in time you'll find you get a lot of grief if you only call the responsive contact and not he first contact. It is not in the spirit of the game to let someone get mauled and call them for a foul for fending of their opponent.

I Second That Emotion ...
 

Agree. I change my call to a team control foul on Blue #1. That was a nasty elbow.

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.

Another perspective
 

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:

Can't ignore the elbow
 

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.

One more thought
 

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?

Excellent Points
 

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.

A Joke For The "More Experienced" Crowd ...
 

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

I can see your point
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So this all boils down to how we're judging White #22's actions more than anything else. For me it doesn't appear as though he climbed over Blue #1's shoulders or went through Blue #1 so I move on to the next part of the play. For you, everything pretty much stops at the moment Blue #1 and White #22 come together. That's cool. All I'm saying, and have been saying, is for me this is a foul on Blue #1. Not a no call and not a foul on White #22 for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

You're right...the elbow makes a difference. I said that in my very first post back on page 1. If he doesn't shoot the elbow into the defender's chest I do what the game officials did and let play continue.

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.

But as I said I didn't have anything on #22.

Though a call on #22 could make the circumstances surrounding the elbow different in the following manner: With no call on #22 it could be considered a garden variety PC/TC foul. If there's a call on #22 it could be looked at as an retaliatory measure, in which case a technical could be warranted for the intentional contact.

Again, I said it could. for me it isn't since I didn't have anything on #22.

Then you still have to go with an intentional on blue if you think it's something that couldn't have been ignored regardless of what was called on #22.

If it couldn't be ignored during a dead ball, then it's an intentional personal foul during a live ball. If it wouldn't warrant an intentional foul during a live ball, then it has to be ignored during a dead ball.

IOW, you can't say you would have to call the elbow regardless of whether the ball is live or dead and call a PC. That statement boxes you in to either an IPF or ITF. PC just isn't an option.

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.

This still does not exonerate
 

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.

Not a Red Herring
 

Ah, but you can't remove it from the play. It is what in my opinion caused the displacement.

Dead ball displacement is irrelevant unless intentional. And the elbow didn't cause the displacement, the player was contorted sideways before the elbow came up.

a few things
 

1. White 22 does not go over Blue 1's shoulder. Blue 1 does beat him to the spot, but White doesn't go through or over his shoulder. His arm is in front of Blue 1 and makes marginal contact with his bicep. No foul. Blue 1 is not disadvantage in any way.

2. Some are placing way too much emphasis on LGP. LGP is important and I am not minimizing it. But you can't ignore the elbow of Blue 1 because White 22 does not have LGP.

3. LGP and the right to a spot on the floor are mutual exclusive. I can have a right to a spot on the floor but may not be guarding you. That does not give you the right to displace me just because I don't have LGP. I am not saying the White 22 beat Blue 1 to the spot. Just making a point that I believe needs to be made.

You are correct if there is a dead ball. There wouldn't be in my opinion because white 22 did nothing to foul blue 1. We disagree on the elbow. I've already gone into the physics. However, let me add one thing. The way White 22 fell is due to the elbow not the hip. He would not have fallen the way he did without the elbow.