Post move

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

10-6-1: .............nor use ANY rough tactic.

A push with the ball could certainly be a rough tactic.

OK, well I work football as you might know and in that sport if someone grabs hair in an effort to tackle someone, it is not a foul even if the tactic is rough or dangerous in nature. If they do not want their hair grabbed in a tackle, cut it so it is not hanging out of your helmet. And that has been mentioned by the same NF that produces the rules you referenced.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

For those who don't feel the OP is a PC: What positive is going to come from allowing players to use the ball to shove people out of the way? I know, I know, we don't adjudicate things within the game based on positive or negative impact but it would seem this would fall under 2-3/use common sense to deal with the situation.

Oh, regarding the hair discussion (one of two references to hair in the rule book):

If someone hits someone with the ball, that causes some kind of action, I am not calling a PC foul; I am calling something else. If that push causes annomosity and is outside of a simple move common to basketball where the ball might inadvertently be pushed with the basketball or hit with the basketball, then I got nothing. As I said, I cannot imagine a play or a situation where I would call just a PC foul for contact with the ball. I also do not imagine how someone could be pushed with the ball in a way that the defenders are not trying to steal the ball from them or simply knock it away. Maybe very young kids, but high school aged kids would just take the ball away from them. Again this is one of these conversations that seem to be had here and hardly ever realistically takes place in a game. And if it happens once, I doubt seriously it is happening again.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, and one has little to do with the other.

Again, find me an interpretation instead of what we like to do on this site, use our own personal feelings to make a ruling.

I have yet to see such an interpretation and considering how often the ball could be used in such a way, I would think this topic is addressed. Hair for a violation like being out of bounds is mentioned and has been mentioned in previous casebooks and NF interpretations.

Peace

So don't call it.

I will.

The difference in how we approach it may affect exactly one call throughout both of our careers combined.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

So don't call it.

I will.

The difference in how we approach it may affect exactly one call throughout both of our careers combined.

Isn't that what we do already?

And I doubt I will see it as described. So it will not be much of an issue in the first place.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If someone hits someone with the ball, that causes some kind of action, I am not calling a PC foul; I am calling something else.

What’s the something else? It can’t be a technical because the ball is live. If A1 doesn’t do anything that’s otherwise illegal (travel is the only thing I can come up with based on the OP), the menu of what we can and can’t do is kind of short in this situation. Also if B1 reacts negatively and both players are penalized isn’t that acknowledging A1 did something (s)he shouldn’t have done in the first place?

[johnny d]

It can be an unsporting technical whether the ball is live or not. JRut isn't ruling this a contact play because it doesn't involve body contact on the part of the offender. Since he is judging that this isn't a contact play, he can call this a technical foul if he deems the action unsporting.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It can be an unsporting technical whether the ball is live or not. JRut isn't ruling this a contact play because it doesn't involve body contact on the part of the offender. Since he is judging that this isn't a contact play, he can call this a technical foul if he deems the action unsporting.

Exactly.

Peace