Dead ball contact
 

First half, I am Trail opposite. 5 seconds left in the first half. Black takes the sideline inbound pass and drives up the court. B1 beats his primary defender, A1. A1 runs to catch up, and tries to swat the ball away from B1. A1 fouls B1 on the arm, who loses the ball. Clock stops at .9 seconds. After my whistle A1 keeps running past B1 and runs into B2 who is at the 3 point line. I cannot see B2 because I am being screened by B1. There is contact between A1 and B2 and A1 ends up on the floor. I hold my original foul call and look to my partners to see if they saw what led to the contact between A1 and B2. We don't gather, and after a few seconds I simply take the 1st foul to the table. At halftime I asked my partners and neither of them saw whether B2 set a legal screen that A1 ran into, or if B2 gave A1 a forearm (which is what A1 was claiming). Neither coach gave me any problems when I reported the foul, and we administered the bonus with B1 shooting.

Absent knowledge of how the dead-ball contact between A1 and B2 occurred, was I right to not call a technical? I felt that B1 was a secondary screener -- would this dead ball contact be Lead's call?

Contact after the dead ball is ignored unless it is flagrant, or if it's on an airborne shooter.

You are missing something here...............intentional contact is not ignored either.

you are missing everything. Contact after the ball is dead is either ignored, Or if need be called is a _______?

I'll let you fill in the blank. But it doesn't state the contact be either intentional or flagrant. It could be what we may normally call a common foul on, but be so egregious that the whistle has to be blown. The foul however will not be common. Usually it has to do with players just not paying any attention to the ball.

You need to actually go back and read your rule book.

Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Correct, I did leave out intentional.

Yes it does

4-19-1
Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

.

1. Under what circumstances would you call a technical foul, or any type of foul for that matter, without definite knowledge as to what actually occurred?

2. Not sure exactly what type of situation you are describing in this play so I cannot comment with any certainty, but I would think the center would be in a better position than the lead to observe the contact you have tried to describe.

I felt that something needed to be called on that contact. My L and C were no help, and I seriously considered making a call even though I had no idea if the contact was intentional or simply incidental.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. If the contact was that bad that a T or IF was warranted you have to trust that your partners would handle things.

Without clear knowledge I do not call anything. I do not want to be guessing on a technical foul.

If you didn't see it, what are you going to call?

Why did / do you feel that something needed to be called?

This is never a good idea. Maybe you guys missed something, perhaps even some flagrant action. Unless you have the option to review the play on a monitor, you are only compounding the problem by making stuff up and guessing. Your feelings are not what matters. Observing the play and making the correct call is. We all have regrets when we think we miss something.

My whistle had blown, so it either would have been an intentional technical, or flagrant technical. It wasn't flagrant, so it was either going to be an INT tech or nothing. I felt a call had to be made because of the amount of contact -- A1 basically got trucked by B2, but I have no idea if it was INT worthy or not. It looked like INT-level contact, but I couldn't know for sure from my angle, all I saw was the kid falling and hit the floor hard. The whole crowd exclaimed and A1 was in my face after getting up telling me how that is an INT. As I said, I only considered doing something because at the time my partners seemed like they had no idea what to do. This suspicion was confirmed when we were in the locker room and they said they had no idea.

Contact doesn't have to be "intentional" to be an intentional foul. IMO, this "unless" provision should also include excessive contact. Not saying you situation would have qualified, but it could have.

The definition of intentional foul covers the excessive part.

Yep. Guess I could have been more clear.

I would say my feelings did matter. Based on my limited play calling intuition I felt that something big had happened, and I felt that something should have been called, despite my limited view of what happened. My gut said call something, my mind said don't guess. How would you have chosen?

If I didn't see it clearly, I wouldn't have made the call. Make a note to be more aware of that sort of action in the future and learn from the situation. That gut instinct is probably right, but maybe B1 was just protecting himself from a pending collision with A1.

If coach asks, tell him you were focused on the foul you called and didn't get a clear look at the ancillary action.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. The call you make will be intentional or technical however the actual severity of contact may not hit the threshold of what may be an intentional or technical.

I'm not sure I understand either. :confused:

The call you make will be either intentional or flagrant. It'll just be a technical foul rather than a personal foul.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. If you didn't see what happened, which you said several times you didn't, you can't just call something because you think something happened. If you don't see it, leave it alone. That's what you have partners for.

Right but the actual act that you penalize could be a common foul if the ball was live. Some officials could interpret this that ONLY intentionals or technicals should be called. When the fact could be that the foul that is penalized may not be level of severity. But the penalty assessed CAN only be intentional or technical and NOT common.

I think it would have to be more than a common foul. A lot of contact is a result of other contact that was already called. Someone just falling down into someone is not going to result in a foul that I would call Intentional or a Technical in a dead ball situation. I think the point of the language is to highlight that it has to be relatively serious to call a foul in that situation.

Peace

If it would have been a common fouls had the ball been live, then it will be ignored (that is, it will not be penalized -- you might address it from a game management perspective) if the ball is dead.

Again, those are not opposites / exclusive terms. The foul called in this play will either be an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. It will not be an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul or a common foul.

Please stop saying "it will be intentional OR technical" -- it will likely be both (if called) in this play. (Not directed at you alone)

No idea what happened or no idea what to do?

There's a big difference and you haven't given solid statement as to what your partners said about the situation.

If somebody already said this, forgive me. He mentions in the OP that A1 hits the floor. I hope not too much was made of this. Even if you did see the whole thing a player could have hit the floor, hard even, and it could be the result of incidental contact.

Never call what you think or feel. Call what you know. Usually that means taking emotion out of the equation.

I would normally agree. If I made a call there it would have been a guess, although an educated guess based on what I did know.

I did give a solid statement, I wrote this in my OP:

I say they didn't know what to do because they didn't see the play either.

Where was the collision?

I was Trail, Lead was at the end line, C was at FTLE tableside. I was behind and to the side of my primary matchup, following the dribbler and his primary defender. Contact between A1 and B2 occurred right outside the 3 point line, about 2/3 of the way from the sideline to the nearer lane line.

They knew what to do. They did nothing because they didn't see anything.

In the future everyone needs to have better dead ball awareness. When I see players continuing action after the whistle, I toot my whistle loudly to get them to stop.

Correct. And absent them seeing anything I was considering making a call based on a guess, a gut feeling. Sounds like a made an ok no-call. Hopefully I'll stop thinking about it now.

I am assuming this was a JV or V contest. Why don't you call the AD at the school and ask for a copy of the game. I will often bring a blank CD / self addressed envelope with postage with me to games. More often than not the AD, head coach, or athletic dept are more than happy to mail me a copy. You want some good constructive critism wait until you see yourself on video. :eek:

Here is the video. A couple plays here:

Play 1: Blocked shot
Play 2: Block/charge play
Play 3: Dead ball contact

I am Trail.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YtT0ilq2nzQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) Clean block

2) Block or nothing

3) Collision happened so fast after the whistle, it's hard to tell. Offensive player was going set a pick then turned after hearing whistle. If anything, I go to him and said, "You might have got away with one right there, but we'll be watching for anything else"

I have nothing on all three plays.

1. Clean Block.

2. Nothing.

3. Probably nothing, but I would have to know the context of the game. Was this a trouble maker or was this just the first time this type of contact took place? I might talk to the player as well, but doubt that alone would be a foul.

Peace

1. Looks clean

2. Blocking foul

3. Nothing in of itself...game situation might dictate otherwise.

I agree with APG that the block/charge play needs a whistle. Why do you other guys say no-call?

To me, A1 was going to land on the floor regardless of the slight contact with B1.

Could it be a foul? Yes. But is a no-call here the worse thing in the world? Nope.

For me, the video is not about whether the call should have been made (you already said neither you nor your partners saw it.) It is this: what can I do the next time to be sure I see the illegal dead ball contact?

I think you and your partners were all doing their job well. Sometimes, stuff happens. The C, who might be in best position, can't see it because he is screened by other players...and has the back of the play. The lead is hustling to get ahead of the play, is properly looking back, but is not in any great position to see the off-ball contact. And you -- who might have the best view -- are watching the play up the sidelines.

Your original question, before the video was posted, was "What do you do when you feel there is a illegal dead ball contact, but you have not seen it?"

Even with this single video angle, I cannot say for sure that B2 used his forearm to send A1 to the ground. It probably happened...but the video does not "prove it."

As others have said....don't call what you didn't see. And don't sweat this one any more. You and your partners did all that is expected of you.

Not being a smarty pants but for situational purposes A is on offense and B is on defense when describing.

I do not see displacement, I see a guy fly by a defender mostly. There might be slight contact, but nothing caused by the defender.

Peace

I have a block on #2. The defender, with nowhere near LGP, cut under the shooters leg and caused him to flip around and to the floor. Shooter would have landed on his feet otherwise. That is a protect the shooter play if there ever was one.

Now that I've seen the play on a better video, I agree, should have had a whistle for a block on that play. Defender's torso contacted the airborne shooter's leg.

Here are some more plays from this game that I wanted to hear some opinions about.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pcJgbXiOdb4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) Foul on white for pushing through the screen.

2) Hard to tell from this angle, but I probably let it go

3) Black begins the motion just past the FT line -- shooting foul

4) Not a shooting foul

5) Good call -- white pushed black back, then got the rebound

6) Seems right, but tough to see. Why did the officials converse immediately after?

7) Looks like a flop by black

Agree on all. #2 is iffy but I would like to see another angle before I say it's wrong.

On a different note, I really don't like the pointing to the floor mechanic used in #3 and #4 when they have a non-shooting foul. I just think waving the shot off and then giving the throw-in spot looks a lot sharper.

1. Push by the white defensive player.
2. Probably illegal, but I hope it was the first kind of play. I did not see a lot of displacement, just a guy going around the screen on some level.
3. Give him foul shots.
4. Give him shots. BTW, I hate one armed mechanics. Wave the basket off or award shots.
5. I have no idea who that foul was called on. Looks like a play on to me.
6. Common foul. I hope there is not a consideration for anything else. Basketball play that had two out of control players.
7. Looks like more of a flop and little contact. I would rather have a play on here.

Peace

Agree on all counts with the same point on #2. It might be a good illegal screen call...I tend to think so.

1. Is this Lead's call or Trail?
2. I've heard almost a 50/50 split on whether this play is legal or illegal

5. That's me making the call. I felt black had prime rebounding position and was displaced (even just a little) when white returned inbounds. I held my whistle until there was advantage realized. If the basket was good or rolled off the rim the other direction I would have let this go.
6. I ran to my partner to ask him if he wanted to upgrade. He said no.
7. Either a no-call or a block I think.

It could be the C's call if they have a clean look at this play. The Trail is on ball at this play, they would likely catch it late if at all. Well no one caught it or passed on it for some reason.

I just do not see much displacement, but then again you had a much better angle. The video looks more like normal contact.

Why would you ask him? It was his play and if you had a call I could see the discussion. But it looked like he saw the play the entire way, no need for a discussion IMO.

Peace

Based on the game temperature. It was a frustration foul as black was losing by a lot. This, coupled with the dead ball contact from the other video made me think that we should call this an INT to put a foot on any other ideas black had about hard fouls.

Trust your partner.

Well your partner did not seem to be too concerned. If I were you, I would have been more concerned about the players on the floor than talking with my partner at that moment. Let your partner do his job on a play he was mostly responsible for. If he felt it was that bad, he could have called it originally. This was a basketball play. I get thinking on some level this should be upgraded, but this is not a play where that discussion needs to be had.

Peace

#6) IMHO, as the trail, you shouldn't go sprinting over there... hold your spot, make sure that the fouled player (or his teammate) doesn't get up with "ill intent", so to speak.

If there are "game temperature" concerns, the freeze and observe routine becomes even more important, IMHO.

I agree with you. I think that was a good get. Black was clearly displaced by white's shove in the back. It wasn't dramatic. It may have not even been obvious to the casual observer. But, he was displaced.....and it shifted the advantage to white on that rebound. If white didn't get it, it would be a no-call....but it had a possession consequence making it a good call.

I agree on the "sprinting." If I make a call, and I think there's any chance that I might have missed something that would result in an "upgrade" then I'm making eye contact with my partners to see if they have anything to add.

Then, we get together.