Block/PC + Positioning (video)

[BryanV21]

I think I'm leaving the first part alone. The dribbler doesn't appear to extend an arm to push, and the defender only moves as much as he does because he's so much smaller... not because he was pushed hard. I see too often where a foul is called on somebody just because they are bigger and going against a smaller player who falls.

I agree that the second is a PC foul, as I see the defender gain LGP against the second dribbler before getting pushed to the floor.

[Toren]

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

[Pantherdreams]

Depending on the level of physicality allowed and for consistencies sake these either have to be PC's or no calls.

Would love to know what the rationale for a block on that play is for the official.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

I see the arm as the ant. It had little to do with anything.

I'm OK with a no call on the first.

On the 2nd contact, it is hard to tell from the video angle but it appears the defender may be stepping into the dribbler making it a block.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Toren

Ants vs. Elephants

The elephant is the offensive player using his off arm to displace the defender. PC.

The ant is everything else.

Thought you were referring to the size of the teams at first Talk about a size mismatch! Looked like the shortest player on orange could be the power forward for white.

I think the second contact was enough to deserve a PC call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I think I'm leaving the first part alone. The dribbler doesn't appear to extend an arm to push, and the defender only moves as much as he does because he's so much smaller... not because he was pushed hard. I see too often where a foul is called on somebody just because they are bigger and going against a smaller player who falls.

I agree that the second is a PC foul, as I see the defender gain LGP against the second dribbler before getting pushed to the floor.

I haven't seen the video, but I don't follow your logic. Knocking a player to the floor doesn't become incidental just because of a size difference.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

I haven't seen the video, but I don't follow your logic. Knocking a player to the floor doesn't become incidental just because of a size difference.

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

Perhaps, but sometimes contact that would be legal between two similarly sized players is a foul when one is sufficiently bigger that less severe contact knocks the player down.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

Perhaps, but sometimes contact that would be legal between two similarly sized players is a foul when one is sufficiently bigger that less severe contact knocks the player down.

True. The size of players involved can often deceive.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

True. The size of players involved can often deceive.

I'm not talking about being deceived. I'm talking about contact that is by rule a foul simply vs contact between opponents of similar size that would be incidental.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What I failed to make clear in that post is that I believe the size difference can make slight contact, which may not be enough to draw a foul, look like more. Which could be what is going on here.

I see it more in lower level games, where some kids grow fast while others grow slowly, so you end up with kids that weight significantly more than others. So contact between the two may look like a whale, but in reality the contact comes from legal play between two players.

Still not sure I follow your logic on this. The level of contact, across the spectrum from slight to severe, has no bearing on whether or not a foul has been committed. If the contact affects a players RSBQ or causes them to be displaced from a legally obtained position, it is a foul. In some cases, the contact might be slight and also constitute a foul and in other cases, the contact could be severe and be legal. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to use the size of the players involved to determine if contact is legal/illegal.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Still not sure I follow your logic on this. The level of contact, across the spectrum from slight to severe, has no bearing on whether or not a foul has been committed. If the contact affects a players RSBQ or causes them to be displaced from a legally obtained position, it is a foul. In some cases, the contact might be slight and also constitute a foul and in other cases, the contact could be severe and be legal. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to use the size of the players involved to determine if contact is legal/illegal.

Why do I get the feeling that instead of seeing the point you're trying to find fault in what is said? I mean, I could spend more time on the post, in order to make things as clear as possible, but the point is simple... Size can often deceive.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why do I get the feeling that instead of seeing the point you're trying to find fault in what is said? I mean, I could spend more time on the post, in order to make things as clear as possible, but the point is simple... Size can often deceive.

You are right, the point could not be more simple. You are looking at factors that are irrelevant in determining whether or not a foul has occurred. There is no need to be deceived by the size difference between two players involved in any play. Using the example you first gave, it does not matter that the bigger player barely contacted the much smaller player. If the result is that the smaller player has their RSBQ disrupted or is displaced from their legally obtained position, it is a foul. Nor does it matter that this same amount of contact would have no affect a larger player resulting in a no call. The only exceptions to this allowed by rule are the new absolutes involving two hands on the ball handler, arm bars on the ball handler, continually keeping a hand on the ball handler, and multiple hot stove touches on the ball handler, all of which are automatic fouls regardless of their affect on RSBQ.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by johnny d

You are right, the point could not be more simple. You are looking at factors that are irrelevant in determining whether or not a foul has occurred. There is no need to be deceived by the size difference between two players involved in any play. Using the example you first gave, it does not matter that the bigger player barely contacted the much smaller player. If the result is that the smaller player has their RSBQ disrupted or is displaced from their legally obtained position, it is a foul. Nor does it matter that this same amount of contact would have no affect a larger player resulting in a no call. The only exceptions to this allowed by rule are the new absolutes involving two hands on the ball handler, arm bars on the ball handler, continually keeping a hand on the ball handler, and multiple hot stove touches on the ball handler, all of which are automatic fouls regardless of their affect on RSBQ.

My problem with that line of thinking is that the ball handler did the same thing against Player A (aka the small guy) as he did against Player B (the large guy). And that same action is illegal in one case, but not the other. What did the ball handler do wrong in one case that he didn't do in the other?

What if I take the word "deceive" out... A play can look different due to the size of the player(s) involved.