Post move
 

8th grade girls basketball. Player receives ball in post and squares to basket. Immediately takes ball and uses it to provide force and pushes defensive player away then shoots 6 foot shot which goes in. Can this be player control even though no contact has occurred?

All fouls that are not unsporting, require contact.

That should answer your question.

Peace

My take: By a strict reading of the rule, no. In all practical senses, yes.

And, it's been discussed here with several on each side of this.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...away-ball.html

I agree with Bob.

It should be a PC. A1 created illegal contact that put B1 at a disadvantage. If A1 was driving to the basket and hit B1 with the ball as part of the habitual motion of her shot that's one thing. In the OP, A1 purposely used the ball to create contact to give herself an advantage.

Put me in the "agree with bob" camp.

Six Of One, Half Dozen Of Another ...
 

Rule 4 includes a definition of a foul that describes contact, in general, not just body to body contact:

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements.

However, once one gets to Rule 10, the various types of illegal contact all involve various types of body to body contact, e.g., hand, leg, body, arm.

Put me in the "agree with Adam" camp....which also puts me in the "agree with bob" camp. :D

Put me in the not agreeing with Bob, Adam and Camron camp. You cannot call a foul IMO without contact from another person's body part. Someone can take the ball away or knock it out of your hand. I am not calling a foul just because the ball was used to cause contact.

Peace

While I agree in principle with what JRut says, I vaguely recall a college clarification or ruling coming directly from Art Heyland a few years ago when the swinging the elbows rule first came out indicating that a FF1/intentional foul should be called when the offensive player contacts the defensive player with the ball, above the defensive players shoulders, while excessively swinging their elbows, even though there was not contact with the offensive players arms. I can see how one can extrapolate that ruling to the situation described in the op, especially considering there is not anything written specifically about that type of play.

That is an interesting point Johnny, but I do not believe this conversation was about NCAA rules. And I would have to see that ruling to be comfortable making that kind of call, certainly at that level.

Peace

My high school interpreter has this as a PC. I’d be interested to learn what other interpreters say about it.

4-45-5: The offensive player............may not "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane, which is a foul.


Clearing out by using the ball is still clearing out.

There was contact, from the ball. I totally agree though. No contact with the ball, no foul.

Well then get in the weight room or take the darn ball away. ;)

Peace

Let's take a look at NFHS 4-19-1. I see a foul defined as "illegal contact....which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements".

I don't see anything that says illegal contact requires flesh-on-flesh contact. Does forcefully using the ball to push an opponent away prevent that opponent from performing normal defensive movements? Yes.

That is great that you have read this rule, but you cannot read a rule and then say, "See...there it is."

There are other rules in the rulebook. And 10-6 clearly makes a reference to other specific body parts and never mentions the ball. So how can you have illegal contact when contact is not defined in the rulebook with anything but body parts?

You are right the rule does not say flesh to flesh, but you would think if they considered contact with a jersey, hair or the ball that would be defined.

Peace

By using some common sense we can realize that while it is tough to foul someone with your hair or jersey, it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a player can foul another player using the ball.

10-6 does not specifically make reference to ball contact, but that does not preclude such a possibility.

The rules are not always written for the sake of common sense. Now could there be other violation of rules if the ball is used to cause contact? Of course, that is what the unsporting rules are for.

And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair. That is why I said it was a stretch.

Peace

I don't understand this sentence at all, could you please clarify?

What is there to explain? If we are supposed to call fouls for the ball being used, why is it any different if a player has long enough hair or texture of hair that would allow for someone to be hit in the face or hit in someway that puts an opponent at a disadvantage? Maybe you have never seen players with hair down their back like you see in the NFL or in NCAA College Football. I could see a player with dreads down their back swining their head and hitting an opponent in the face even if the hair is tied down with ponytail.

Peace

Hair touching OOB is enough for a violation. If contact with hair caused an advantage, call it.

Well that sentence was poorly constructed and wasn't very clear. It started off sounding like a question and I couldn't tell where it went from there. I can't respond to your argument if I don't know what you were saying.

Not all disadvantage is illegal. I consider the hair contact you describe to be incidental. Using the ball to push away an opponent however, is not incidental.

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

You are right, all disadvantage is not illegal. And for me to call a foul I need more than what you have stated here to call a foul. Again, I cannot go to my supervisors and say, "Some guy named AremRed said this was a foul, so I called it that way." And if it is a foul, it is not going to a foul like using your hand or arm.

Peace

I didn't say that, read it again.

Very fair point. However, I am not simply saying "this is a foul, trust me", I am saying "this action fits the definition of a foul as per 4-19-1 and I don't see anything in the language precluding ball contact".

I think we both know where each other stand, so let's end it here.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this last point when the rules of contact never state anything but contact with a body part, not an extended item. And this is why different officials have different judgments. There would have to be more for me to call a foul.

Peace

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

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

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):

It's Nice To Be On This Side Of The Monitor For A Change ...
 

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.

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

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

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?

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