Pushing vs OOB- Rebounding

[rekent]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The concept to use is often called "Possession Consequence". ...

What is the current general philosophy/acceptability of this practice? That is more or less how I was taught, but it seems like it is losing favorability.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rekent

What is the current general philosophy/acceptability of this practice? That is more or less how I was taught, but it seems like it is losing favorability.

Losing favor? What are you hearing in favor of?

I've been thought to call a foul in rebounding situations if there's possession consequence or to clean up rough play.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by APG

Losing favor? What are you hearing in favor of? ...

For example: A1 under pressure bringing the ball into the front-court, B1 bumps A1 creating enough contact that a foul could be called and it is not marginal, but A1 keeps his balance and takes off and is actually put in a better position now than if the foul had been called.

When I was first learning from a D1 official, I was told to save that call and let A1 keep the resulting advantage. Now though, (far less experienced and lower level) people are saying to call that foul even though there was no "possession consequence."

So that is my question. In the officiating community, is allowing that play to go because it puts the aggrieved player in a better position despite callable contact still the favored approach, or is what I am being told now to call everything regardless of a lack of "possession consequence" the more currently accepted approach?

[APG]

Originally Posted by rekent

For example: A1 under pressure bringing the ball into the front-court, B1 bumps A1 creating enough contact that a foul could be called and it is not marginal, but A1 keeps his balance and takes off and is actually put in a better position now than if the foul had been called.

When I was first learning from a D1 official, I was told to save that call and let A1 keep the resulting advantage. Now though, (far less experienced and lower level) people are saying to call that foul even though there was no "possession consequence."

So that is my question. In the officiating community, is allowing that play to go because it puts the aggrieved player in a better position despite callable contact still the favored approach, or is what I am being told now to call everything regardless of a lack of "possession consequence" the more currently accepted approach?

Your first play sounds like an RSBQ play...if the dribbler's rhythm, speed, quickness, or balance is effected, then it's a foul. Otherwise, pass on the play. Possession consequence (as I've been thought) deals with rebounding situations.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by APG

Your first play sounds like an RSBQ play...if the dribbler's rhythm, speed, quickness, or balance is effected, then it's a foul. Otherwise, pass on the play.

Basically yes it is a RSBQ, but the teaching was that even if RSBQ is effected, if there is no possession consequence and the aggrieved is better off, pass.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rekent

Basically yes it is a RSBQ, but the teaching was that even if RSBQ is effected, if there is no possession consequence and the aggrieved is better off, pass.

Possession consequence has more to do with rebounding plays.

In judging RSBQ I'm determining if the defender's contact restricted the offensive player from performing his desired action. Bumping a ball-handler may not cause a turnover but it may throw off the timing of the alley-oop pass that he was setting up.

[APG]

I feel like either you, or whoever told you, is mixing up philosophies. Possession consequence deals with rebounding situations. If it applied to the plays you're talking about, you could literally have defenders body bumping dribblers without regard as long as the dribbler didn't lose possession of the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rekent

So that is my question. In the officiating community, is allowing that play to go because it puts the aggrieved player in a better position despite callable contact still the favored approach, or is what I am being told now to call everything regardless of a lack of "possession consequence" the more currently accepted approach?

If the player is in a better position after than before, are they really so aggrieved?

Most players and coaches, if there is a direct scoring opportunity (i.e., and open layup), do not want you to call a foul that gives them a throwin. A few don't get it, but most would actually be upset with you for taking away 2 points.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rekent

What is the current general philosophy/acceptability of this practice? That is more or less how I was taught, but it seems like it is losing favorability.

I think you have it backward.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rekent

What is the current general philosophy/acceptability of this practice?

"Two wrongs don't make a right".