Foul without contact?
 

Just a layman with a question here;

In a state game this weekend, a girl from my daughter's team was guarding a ball handler from the other team. The girl drives and tries to jump stop, gathering the ball in front of her while in the air, then rams into our girl with the ball as she lands. It looked clearly to be player control to me, but was called a block. That's neither here nor there really though. My question concerns the fact that the ball acted as a buffer between the two players and there didn't appear to be any actual physical contact between the two players involved in the play;

SECTION 7 BLOCKING, CHARGING

ART. 1 . . . Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of
an opponent with or without the ball.

I know it's a bit of a technicality, and you certainly can't have players running around using the ball as a weapon, but I'm just curious what the general view is on this. Do you have a foul if there is no player to player contact?

This, like most plays, has been debated here before. Some say that since there is no direct contact, if a foul is called it must be a technical. I look at the ball as an extension of the hand so a PC is a possibility. I don't see any way you could call a foul on the defender if the only contact is with the ball.

I don't always agree with jar, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis
 

I agree with just another ref. I'll add that it's possible the official saw something you didn't (contact). Or, he just missed it and thought he saw something you didn't.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the ball and only the ball made contact with the defender?


If the offensive player intentionally "used the ball as a weapon" to clear out an opponent, I'd probably have an intentional foul on the offense.

But if it was not intentional and happened (as you said) unintentionally with the player trying to gather the ball and land, I'm calling it like I would a normal block/charge play ... I'm looking at whether or not the defender have legal guarding position and going from there.

Always listen to Adam. I am qualified to comment here, having just returned from Mexico.


Either way, a Dos Equis couldn't hurt.

IF (and I wasn't there) the defender didn't give the offensive player a spot to land (and wasn't in the spot before the offensive player left the floor), and if the contact caused a disadvantage, then I'm likely to see the contact as occurring on the body and get a blocking foul, even if others see the contact as only with the ball.

This is true. I was wondering about how the play should be ruled, as I saw it, that the contact was only with the ball.

And to be clear, I never meant to suggest there was anything intentional about it. When I say she "rams" our player, it was just her momentum carrying her into her, - though it was a pretty aggressive move and I felt like she completely initiated the contact.

Thanks for the info guys.

I'll add that I think bob is right. If the defender didn't have LGP and moved into the opponent's path, forcing the opponent to brace her fall with the ball, I'm calling a block.

If "the hand is part of the ball", is the ball part of the hand?

Like I said, I'm no official, but I do lurk here and try to understand the rules. In my view she was in textbook LGP and all her movements were completely legal. The ballhandler was quite a bit bigger and drove right at her trying to get to the hoop. She took maybe 2-3 steps back, then stood her ground with her arms out at her sides, at which point the ballhandler jumped right into the middle of her chest with the ball, sending her ***-over-teakettle.

IMO, this was an easy PC foul for probably 90+% of the guys here, and probably the other two guys on the floor at the time as well (the whole ball thing notwithstanding). We have this official pretty regularly. I don't recall her ever calling a PC fall unless it was absolutely beyond question. If you want that call from her, you better have been in that spot long enough to be receiving mail and have a cable hookup.

If the dribbler didn't use the ball intentionally to clear out an opponent, then there's no way you can call a foul on the defender for contacting the ball (or being contacted by the ball) - contacting the ball is legal.

Getting mail and cable.. that was funny...LOL

Count me in the camp that believes this way of thinking and officiating such action is dead wrong BY RULE.

The ball cannot foul anyone! Your initial post was correct that there must be physical contact between two opposing players in order to call a personal foul.
An unsporting act of deliberately striking an opponent with the ball can only be deemed a technical foul, BY RULE.

Please explain how you have a blocking foul when the defender didn't make any contact with the ball handler? Lah me. (I miss him.)

Was listening to the radio broadcast of the NC State/Florida St game on Saturday and the broadcaster said, "there so long, he was paying rent!"
That made me laugh.

PS the play was called a block. I would love to see it. About 11 mins left in 2nd half.

Is this deja vu? I remember this discussion from before.

So here is a play I've had before. The player with the ball uses the ball to push his defender back to clear space.
What are you calling?
A No call
B Player control foul
C Technical foul
D Something else

A

I can't see calling a personal foul because of contact with the ball.

How can you no call that? Are you that much rulebook lawyer?

10-6-1: A player shall not.........push.......an opponent by extending arms......


The fact that he's holding the ball doesn't change the fact that it was a push, clearly an illegal act.

Whatever it is, how can it be a no call?

1. I don't make up my own rules to suit my personal feelings on plays. You seem to think that makes one a poor official. That's sad since the NFHS has clearly and directly instructed officials to enforce the rules as written and refrain from imposing their personal opinions.
2. If you can't stand ot having a whistle on this action, then you can assess a technical foul and have rules book support. Just be ready for someone to call you a rules lawyer.
3. Consider this play which happens with enough frequency that most of us have encountered it.
A defensive player grabs a ball being held by an offensive player in an attempt to create a heldball. Quickly the offensive (or defensive) player pulls the ball away and the force used causes the opposing player to fall to the floor. There is no player-to-player contact only each player touching the ball. Do you call a foul on this action?

Different plays entirely. In this play, the defender is going for the ball. In the debated play, the offensive player is using the ball instead of a hand or arm to displace an opponent. Essentially, using a loophole in the rules to create an advantage. One could argue that this is an advantage not intended by the rules.

That's a laughable interpretation. Talk about not understanding the context.
The text says arms, legs, hip, etc., but clearly does NOT list the ball.
Trying looking at these for clarification:
"ART. 1 . . . Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball.
ART. 2 . . . Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso."

Or one could argue that the defender should grab the ball.

No. Jump ball or no call, depending how long the ball was tied up.

But that made me think of this play: how many times have we seen someone block a shot attempt with so much force on the ball that it sends the offensive player to the floor? And do we call foul there? I don't, but somehow I see these plays as different than the ones discussed earlier in this thread.

Good example. What is different and is making people uncomfortable is the element of intent. If using the ball for a deliberate push strikes the official as an unfair act, then the proper penalty is an unsporting technical foul. Take a look at the definition-basically word for word! I'm not against an official making that call. I'm only against an official making a call that is wrong by rule and charging a personal foul in this case.

ART. 14 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

Doesn't list a 2 x 4 either. Can I carry one of them and use it to clear space?

Now I get the joke. HA!!!

Peace

So if he uses a 2x4 you're calling a personal foul instead of a technical foul.

The point was:

He pushed. He cleared space. That is a given in the case at hand.


I understand the argument that contact with the ball cannot be a personal, though I don't agree.

I don't understand how it could be a no call.

Very different than the play being discussed. This is just the result of a normal basketball activity. Shot, block and incidental contact after the shot. The intention wasn't to knock the player to the ground but prevent the shot.

Holding the ball and using it to push a defender is no different in my book than using and arm or hand to clear space. The ball is just an extension of the body, and it was used to gain an advantage.

Calling a T here is overkill and not calling anything is wrong IMO.

I can't either.

Peace

Let me look into my crystal ball:

I see a little time away from the board quite possible for two posters if they don't calm things down and stop focusing on each other.

(For those that don't understand why I posted this, I just deleted 4 messages. One was because it focused on and quoted another deleted message.)

Rich, in all honesty I don't start, nor say anything without someone else comment first. If you can show where I started anything I'll gladly apologize.

You don't need to apologize. You simply need to resist the urge to get in a pissing match. I deleted another post of yours in another thread.

Life would be much easier here if a poster didn't focus on you and you didn't respond right back when he does. Like basketball, it's possible I'll only get the second foul committed...but probably not.

Anyhow, this is my last comment on this. Next time, I head to the garage where I keep the banhammer. :D

Fair enough.

If the defender is facing the offensive player and the offensive player is using the ball then the defender has every opportunity to put his hands on the ball so I'm not calling anything unless the push is to the face area, which would be an unsporting T.

If the defender's back is turned and the offensive player uses the ball to INTENTIONALLY knock the player down or out the way then I would consider an unsporting T.

In neither situation is a personal foul a consideration for me.

Imagine a player using his off hand to push the defender back to create space and then be able to shoot. We would all call a player control foul , correct?

Imagine the same amount of contact and space created but the contact is created by the dribbler using the ball instead of his hand. Are you making a call? That exact play happened to me last year.

Y'all take this for what it's worth, but I believe the NBA doesn't take such a literal reading of the rule and would rule this an offensive foul rather than a technical foul.

This is ridiculous that referees would even consider a foul for an offensive player sticking the ball out and the defender not being able to do anything about it. In basketball terms that is called 'a good move'.

If I was playing and an offensive player, while holding the ball pushed me with the ball, would I expect a foul???? Of course not. I would attempt to grab or steal the ball away. If I could not do this then the offensive player beat me with his move. I know we are talking NFHS but try taking your ridiculous call to the playground and call an offensive foul. Good luck. Wearing stripes should not cause a loss of common sense.

The name of this thread says it all. Common foul without contact. My rules interpreter has stressed over and over that this is not possible. Generally, the foul in question has to do with a moving pick. No matter how much the person moves while setting the pick, if there is no contact, then no foul. I believe this applies everywhere in our game.

Ok, Jay - you've officially irritated me by making me agree with Nevada. :) How can you CALL that. If the action is strong enough to be T-worthy, T it up and hope your supervisor's nowhere near the game. But contacting the ball or being contacted by the ball CAN NOT be a personal foul.

This is an enormous stretch. To allow you to see that, I invite you to consider exactly the same play without a ball in his hands. He extends his arms, and the defender flinches, or dodges those arms. You calling a foul?

Nope, I'm not making that call.

If this actually occured where the only contact by the defender was with the ball, then I'm not calling a block.

Based on the original description provided, I find it hard to believe that there was a serious collision and the only points of contact were between ball and player. If it's that bad a collision, there is other contact involved. If it was just the ball, the contact wasn't probably that bad and I would have a no-call

Isn't it usually the 2nd shove in a scrum that gets the T, or the 15 yards in football?

As a person who has had many posts edited or removed, I think you guys go way overboard and remove too much stuff.

Nobody flinched or dodged anything here. There was contact, it just so happens it was with the ball. Picture it this way. Defender is there all day, stationary, waiting. Dribbler approaches and goes airborne. You are straightlined, directly behind the defender. There is contact and the defender lands flat on his back. You can't see what made the actual contact, an outstretched arm or the ball held in both hands.

I don't see where it makes any difference.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not calling fouls I do not see. If I am straight-lined that is even worse to call something I do not see. Players also flop or exaggerate any contact. Saw this several times this year alone.

Peace

Thank you for being a fan of the Official Forum.

Sincerely,
Rich

So you're directly behind the defender and you see the offensive player knock him to the floor and land on top, but you make no call because the contact may have been with the ball.

Well... there's the rules for one...

Classic. :D

I'm not that good. Sometimes I have to put an educated guess on a play. Especially when I'm working 2-man.

There are times when a player goes to the floor and I'm 95% sure that he was tripped or someone stepped on his heel but I couldn't swear under oath that I *saw* foot touch heel. Hasn't stopped me from putting a whistle on it and I haven't been wrong yet when I have.

Will It Go Round In Circles (Billy Preston) ...
 

Hypothetical. For argument sake. A defensive player reaches out and tries to steal the ball from a ball handler but only ends up contacting the ball handler's arm, creating a disadvantage. Foul? Right? Same play and the contact is a big push from behind, creating a disadvantage, but the contact isn't with any "personal" skin on the ball handler, but on his jersey. No "personal" skin to skin contact? No foul? Right? What difference does it make what comes between Brooke Shields and her jeans, or between two players? A jersey? A basketball? Or nothing (skin to skin contact)? Does it, or doesn't it, matter? Does it, or doesn't it, make a difference?

Now let me get my popcorn out of the microwave, so that I can sit back and continue to enjoy this "basketball contact: personal foul, or technical foul" thread, for about the tenth time over the past decade. Maybe we should have a poll? How else will we ever come up with a solid answer without getting any help from the NFHS?

Seriously Billy? The jersey pushes an opponent?

Need To Find A Comfortable Seat Too ...
 

Too quick. My popcorn wasn't ready.

I rarely work 2 man, so this is not much of an issue for me in "real" games. And even when I have worked 2 man, I do everything to get in position. But the situation that JAR describes sounds rather unlikely. I have also seen enough of games where a player acts more like they were contacted and did not get contacted at all. So from the educated guess part, I tend to not "guess" if I did not see anything that looks like contact. If that makes me a bad official then I will just be a bad official. But I like to call what I see, not what I completely guess on. Or I need to move to improve my angles. I do it often, it is not terribly hard and when it becomes very hard I will quit. And I am not saying I am always in the great position, just stating that I do not want to guess. I am like many that kick myself for missing things or not seeing the entire play, but I can tell you when I see myself on tape that is not very common.

Peace

Subsequent to Billy Mac's post. Someone grabs a jersey to hold an opponent. Can't call that a personal foul. No contact with the body.

I'm not talking about guessing as far as the contact. I'm saying if there is contact and the defender is stationary but you cannot see if the contact was with a hand or the ball in the hand it doesn't matter. The call is the same.

Every player has their own uniform/equipment. The ball belongs to everyone. But nice try though. :p

I had a play earlier this year, which I believe I posted in a similar thread:

A2 goes up for a rebound with B2 in front of him. A2 lands and then proceeds to extend the ball with both hands and create enough contact to displace B2 and knock him to the floor.

I called a TC foul and signaled a push though what I was really calling was a PC. Nobody in the gym said a word and many probably assumed I was calling the "over the back" foul that we all know and love.

I felt I needed to get something here and I would make the call again. A2 gained an advantage not intended by the rules when he created contact that displaced B2 and moved him off of his entitled spot on the floor. I didnt view it as intentional or flagrant but as illegal. Obviously many here think this is not supported by rule but I've been down that road before and feel comfortable with the call and, as I stated, would make it again in a similar situation.

As for the play in the OP I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where the offensive player lands and ONLY makes contact with the ball and that contact being enough to displace the defender facing them and make them fall to the floor. But if it happens as I'm reading it I'm likely no-calling it as the defender would seem to have ample opportunity to make a play on the ball.

ETA- Just to clarify on the play where I had a whistle A2 extended the ball and shoved B2 in the back.

A1 driving the lane, collects the ball and jumps off of one foot for a jump stop. B1 has been in position since Friday, and uses his hands to protect his future children from the imminent collision. A1 sees he's about to commit a foul, so uses the ball to push B1 out of the way as A1 lands where B1 was previously standing.

I'm calling this a PC, as I'm certain this isn't a nit the local powers want picked.

I guess it's not as hard to imagine as I stated in my post above.

I'm calling this a PC too and not thinking twice about it.

Guess if we ever work a state tourney game together the "R" gets to make the final decision in the pre-game. :D

Lol. If that ever happens I will be sure to bring up random stuff from this board during the pre-game. Our 3rd will be looking at us like .......:eek:

Exactly my position. But your explanation was better.

What ??? Kid's Get Angry, Pick Up Their Ball, And Go Home All The Time ...
 

It's Not Just Academic ...
 

Note: This discussion does have some merit. It's the difference between no free throws for a player control foul, or two free throws taken by the best free throw shooter on the team for a technical foul.

Well I'm, glad I could stir up some trouble with my first thread. :)

For those finding it hard to believe that the play could have occurred the way I described, with our player being dislodged due to contact only with the ball, here is a picture of the two players involved in the play.

And interestingly, here's the same defender involved in a remarkably similar play in another game in the tourney. It kinda of shows how it went down, though I felt like the other girl thrust the ball out much more. There was visible space between them. I believe this one was called PC.

Well, in this pic, I see at least 3 different points of body contact.

You cannot officiate with a picture, but I see a lot more contact than with just the ball in these pictures.

Peace

What do you mean? I'm the best damned official in the world when watching from the stands or on TV.

That's not the play. I never suggested that there is no contact in that picture, just that it was a play that unfolded in a similar fashion with her defensive positioning and with the bigger girl with the ball out in front of her.

I had a Men's Rec League game years ago where a tall player intentionally hit a much shorter player on top of the head with the ball. I gave him a T.

Ah... so two pictures from which we can derive exactly nothing. Cool. :)

Picture one shows the relative size of the two players involved for those having trouble believing that the defender would have been knocked down with ball only contact. Force equalling MASS times acceleration and all that.

Second picture was merely to help people picture how the play transpired. Simlilar, but not exact. Sorry I tried to help clarify. :rolleyes:

A still picture doesn't show much of anything when you're trying to establish who fouled who or if there was even a foul at all. All it can do is establish that there was contact at that very moment....which is far from enough to determine fault.

I understand that. That was not my intent. The picture I posted isn't even of the play in question. It's a similar play that involved the same defender. I just thought it might help people who were having trouble visualizing how the play went down. Forget I posted it I guess.

It's OK parrot...there are some of us who understood what you were trying to do with the two pictures, and aren't total a$$hats about it.

I just snickered out loud.

:D

I may, or may not, have had that exact word in one of my responses and chose to delete it, or not.

Sometimes discretion is best when you're new. Probably not fair, but.... :D

I am pretty sure the defination of a Technical Foul includes the phrase..A non contact foul by a player, and also an intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead except a foul by an airborne shooter. So since the situation with the offensive player pushing off with the ball isn't a dead ball foul, or a non contact foul, my inclination would to go with a PC foul, or possibly an intentional foul. In my opinion you can't really pass on this. This could fall under the non basketball play and you could get away with the Intentional, but I would probably go with PC.

So you are an "whatever lame name you called everyone" because we think a still picture is a silly example to illustrate how someone is or is not fouled?

Wow, I will remember next time to bring a camera to games and show to coaches, "See, that is a foul!" :rolleyes:

Peace

No, it's because he was relatively clear that he wasn't trying to prove anything with the pictures except to show two things:

1. The relative size of the players.
2. The way a ball could be used as a means of moving another player.

That's it. To belittle the pictures as a lack of proof of a foul (that didn't even occur on the plays he showed) is similar to complaining that he hasn't yet proven that Christian Laettner traveled on that last shot against Kentucky.

That would be a great point if I had ever suggested that that picture - OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAY BTW, FOR THE THIRD TIME - illustrated "how someone is or is not fouled". I was merely trying to offer a picture of a similar scenario to help people visualize how the play unfolded.

First, a$$hat is most certainly not a "lame name".

Second, I did not call "everyone" an a$$hat. Just the 3 or 4 of you who obviously had problems reading what parrot said when he posted those pictures (and it appears are still having the same reading problems).

Third, parrot specifically said that the pictures were NOT of the play he was originally posting about, so of course they were not examples of whether someone was fouled or not.

Fourth, you have made it abundantly clear over the years here that no one's opinion of you matters to you...so why would you even respond to a post where I (or anyone) call you an a$$hat. After all, it doesn't matter to you...I know, I know...you will be back along shortly to tell me why I am wrong and all that.

Peace. :rolleyes:

So I question the validity of a picture being used and that make my opinion the only one that matters? If I recall I am agreeing with others that took a similar position when they questioned the use of the picture. And just because Parrot or anyone says they are not using the picture as an exact example, does not mean that everyone including me has to agree with that take.

BTW, one of the moderators took issue with the picture. I just agree with him that it is a bad form to use and one of the pictures did not even show any contact. If you are wrong that is on you at this point. ;)

Peace

Do not miss the point. Pictures are bad examples of just about anything as to what should or should not be called. There is a reason we use video on this site to illustrate many kinds of plays in the first place. At least with video we can see the way things were done and should be called.

Peace

First - I told you.

Second - please notice the "s" on the end of a$$hats...was never talking about just you.

I had this in a girl's freshman game but I called an intentional foul. She clubbed her opponent in the face using the ball like a weapon. tomegun yelled at me for not tossing her. :)

Boy y'all get grumpy when your seasons wind down.

And one of the other moderators agreed with rocky.

In related news, the price of tea in China is rising.

You could not have been talking about me because I did not make any comment about the picture until your comment. ;)

Peace

Ok, now I know you're just screwing with us.

Post #73
Post #81

How come every conversation eventually turns to the price of tea in China?

I'm adding this to Godwin's Law. :p

I'm more interested in the price of GOOG. It's slid down to below the point where I jumped in...