Excessive Pushing for Rebound Positioning on Made Basket

[rekent]

A2 and B2 are jockeying for position in the low post for rebound position as A1 shoots.

1) As the ball hits the rim, B2 pushes A1 in anticipation of a miss, but the ball goes in.
2) After the ball has passed through the basket or simultaneous with its passing through the basket, B2 pushes A1.

(assume both pushes rise to the level of requiring a foul to be called, but are not unsportsmanlike)

For 1, would it just be basket counted and a common foul on B2, spot throw-in on baseline for A?
On 2, since the ball becomes dead on a made basket is the only recourse a dead-ball contact T? In the NBA they have the odd thing were the fouled player gets 1 free-throw like he was the shooter, but to the best of my knowledge that is not a NFHS rule.

This play was given in a meeting today and the "correct" answer stated was there is no recourse in 1, just play on, and call a common foul on B in 2. That didn't sit well with me and seems wrong.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by rekent

A2 and B2 are jockeying for position in the low post for rebound position as A1 shoots.

1) As the ball hits the rim, B2 pushes A1 in anticipation of a miss, but the ball goes in.
2) After the ball has passed through the basket or simultaneous with its passing through the basket, B2 pushes A1.

(assume both pushes rise to the level of requiring a foul to be called, but are not unsportsmanlike)

For 1, would it just be basket counted and a common foul on B2, spot throw-in on baseline for A?
On 2, since the ball becomes dead on a made basket is the only recourse a dead-ball contact T? In the NBA they have the odd thing were the fouled player gets 1 free-throw like he was the shooter, but to the best of my knowledge that is not a NFHS rule.

This play was given in a meeting today and the "correct" answer stated was there is no recourse in 1, just play on, and call a common foul on B in 2. That didn't sit well with me and seems wrong.

Assuming a foul is called in both situations:

Situation 1 = Score the goal and apply whatever penalty needs to be applied if it's ruled to be a common foul by B2. Team A will either get the ball at the spot for a throw-in, shoot 1-and-1 or shoot 2. If the contact is considered "excessive" it could also be ruled as intentional or flagrant, in which case those penalties would apply.

Situation 2 = Technical foul on B2. Team A shoots 2 then gets the ball at the division line. Keep in mind if a foul is called in this situation the contact would have to be judged as either intentional or flagrant (4-19-5c). Also, there's no term "dead-ball contact T" in NFHS.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by rekent

This play was given in a meeting today and the "correct" answer stated was there is no recourse in 1, just play on, and call a common foul on B in 2. That didn't sit well with me and seems wrong.

Was everyone in the meeting going by what "seems" right and/or wrong? Was there anyone there who might have had a rulebook? Was there anybody there responsible and in charge?
This is a serious response, because for anyone to leave a rules meeting without someone being able to resolve for all involved these relatively fundamental questions doesn't "seem" right by any standard.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[ref3808]

Thinking the same thing Freddy. I don't have my book at the moment but there are cases on each of these.

[JetMetFan]

JMO here but...if any of the folks leading that discussion was really a senior official they shouldn't have needed a rule book to figure this one out. Sounds like they were making stuff up as they went along.

[BLydic]

Depending on the level and with a few exceptions, many would consider calling a foul in situation #1 a game interrupter. If early, a quick word with both players could work.

While #2 rises to what you consider a foul, I believe the rule you have to work with asks was it intentional or flagrant.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BLydic

Depending on the level and with a few exceptions, many would consider calling a foul in situation #1 a game interrupter. If early, a quick word with both players could work.

While #2 rises to what you consider a foul, I believe the rule you have to work with asks was it intentional or flagrant.

+2


In 1) was there any advantage/disadvantage? Probably not.

Had a less experienced official call 3 of these in a game a couple of weeks ago. Nothing but game interrupters.

In 2) the contact would need to be deemed intentional or flagrant to be a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rekent

A2 and B2 are jockeying for position in the low post for rebound position as A1 shoots.

1) As the ball hits the rim, B2 pushes A1 in anticipation of a miss, but the ball goes in.
2) After the ball has passed through the basket or simultaneous with its passing through the basket, B2 pushes A1.

(assume both pushes rise to the level of requiring a foul to be called, but are not unsportsmanlike)

For 1, would it just be basket counted and a common foul on B2, spot throw-in on baseline for A?
On 2, since the ball becomes dead on a made basket is the only recourse a dead-ball contact T? In the NBA they have the odd thing were the fouled player gets 1 free-throw like he was the shooter, but to the best of my knowledge that is not a NFHS rule.

This play was given in a meeting today and the "correct" answer stated was there is no recourse in 1, just play on, and call a common foul on B in 2. That didn't sit well with me and seems wrong.

Are you sure you don't have their response backwards?

Re #2, if I have more than 1 in a season, that's a lot.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

+2


In 1) was there any advantage/disadvantage? Probably not.

Had a less experienced official call 3 of these in a game a couple of weeks ago. Nothing but game interrupters.

In 2) the contact would need to be deemed intentional or flagrant to be a foul.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Adam

Are you sure you don't have their response backwards?

Re #2, if I have more than 1 in a season, that's a lot.

I want to respond that you need more fiber in your diet.

Instead, I'll say that the first situation happnes once or twice a year, the second situation never.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

Are you sure you don't have their response backwards?

Re #2, if I have more than 1 in a season, that's a lot.

We had one of these last night with an official with lesser experience. As the ball was heading to the goal for a successful 3-pointer for A, the L whistled a foul on a B player underneath. I was the T, signaled the good goal and had to ask the L what he had as he stood there a bit confused with his fist in the air. He told me and then went to report and I went to become the lead and gave A the ball again.

The fouling-player's coach simply couldn't understand why A was getting the ball back again. Naturally, A promptly drained another 3. Next time down the floor, I was the C right in front of B's coach. He was still going on about a 6-point play. Finally, I told him that we did everything properly by rule. Foul on B, goal counts, A gets the ball back. That's the rule. (Besides, if it wasn't the rule, B would essentially get a free foul.)

Unfortunately, it was a terrible foul choice. That part I left out. It was one that maybe, maybe, you keep an eye on and if the basket is no good and if there's a disadvantage placed on the player on the rebound, you get it as a rebounding foul. C told me later there was nothing there.

[rekent]

Thanks all.

Yes, this was someone who was supposed to know what they are doing - 13 years.

On 1 I agree it is best to avoid is possible. My inclination is to try and talk the players out of the stupid stuff like this, and if it continues, get the pushing early the next trip to that end of the floor.