Held ball or foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'ld have a foul there.

Now if he's coming into the ball from the other side or if the player is on their back and ball is up above and the player jumps into/onto the ball and ends up landing on the player. Different story.

Getting the ball first doesn't give a player the right to land on another player. Still a foul.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Getting the ball first doesn't give a player the right to land on another player. Still a foul.

I agree with you yet some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

... some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

Note to Some: So, let's see if I've got this straight? A defender runs out to the corner to attempt to block a three point attempt. The defender legally, with no contact between the shooter, and the defender, and successfully, blocks the shot, sending the ball into the crowd (the crowd cheers) but his inertia (I love it when I get to use physics terms on the Forum) carries him into the still airborne shooter, pushing him into the third row of the bleachers, where the shooter sustains a concussion, a simple fracture of his right humerus, and a cut over his right eye that requires six stitches to close. Because the contact occurred after the shot was legally blocked, an official should rule that any subsequent contact is not a foul?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Note to Some: So, let's see if I've got this straight? A defender runs out to the corner to attempt to block a three point attempt. The defender legally, with no contact between the shooter, and the defender, and successfully, blocks the shot, sending the ball into the crowd (the crowd cheers) but his inertia (I love it when I get to use physics terms on the Forum) carries him into the still airborne shooter, pushing him into the third row of the bleachers, where the shooter sustains a concussion, a simple fracture of his right humerus, and a cut over his right eye that requires six stitches to close. Because the contact occurred after the shot was legally blocked, an official should rule that any subsequent contact is not a foul?

That sounds like the sort of play that his interia was out of control and lead to dangerous or rough play. If similar interia carried him past the shooter brushing hinm slightly and the player landing on their feet unphased I'm guessing most would not call the foul. So contact with an airborne shooter isn't always a foul or not always a foul. There is a middle ground in there somewhere. That middle ground is determined by size/ability of athletes, age, level, location (association), and individual judgement. I'm not going to say a player jumping and ending up on another player is never a foul just like I'm not going to say its always a foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Note to Some: ...

Some did not make this statement. You're basing your question off hearsay by Jeremy.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Some did not make this statement. You're basing your question off hearsay by Jeremy.

It has been said by some that most contact after the shot is blocked does not disadvantage the shooter and therefore is not a foul. You can find it on this site if you care to search for it.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

It has been said by some that most contact after the shot is blocked does not disadvantage the shooter and therefore is not a foul. You can find it on this site if you care to search for it.

Perhaps.
That, and the time-worn phrase, "...in my game...".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

It has been said by some that most contact after the shot is blocked does not disadvantage the shooter and therefore is not a foul. You can find it on this site if you care to search for it.

That's not you said initially here. I went ahead and highlighted the important changes.

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree with you yet some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's not you said initially here. I went ahead and highlighted the important changes.

This is when I hate that I'm color-blind. I can barely tell that you changed the font color on those 2 words.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree with you yet some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

That seems like a blanket statement in both cases (now that the ball is blocked or held) the contact is not gaining the players a clear and immediate advantage in terms of the result of the play. Now to determine a foul call it comes to a judgement about whether the contact is excessive or leading to rough play.

The difference becomes (IMO) that I now cannot call a foul based on the immediate adv/disadv of the play not its a a serverity of contact and if I feel its becoming or leading to rough play.

I'm not sure about the sort of games every officiates but high end boys games JV, Varsity, higher+ in this neck of the woods you getting landed on is probably the least severe amount of contact you are going to deal with on a given possession. So I am going to have to see more then a jump ball where a player ends up on top of the other to make it rough(er).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I'm not sure about the sort of games every officiates but high end boys games JV, Varsity, higher+ in this neck of the woods you getting landed on is probably the least severe amount of contact you are going to deal with on a given possession.

Panther, this is the basketball board. Perhaps your intended for your post to be on the football board.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Panther, this is the basketball board. Perhaps your intended for your post to be on the football board.

Nope I got the right one. We don't play football around here and if we do its 3 downs with unlimited people in motion so its really not the same anyway.

This may just be my opinion but if we are talking about rough play a player ending up contacting or on top of another player during the course of a contact sport doesn't seem excessive.

If we are scaling rough play in a non basketball sense. If siblings are rolling around on the floor or grass tugging at a ball thats not really problematic. Someone throws a kick, punch or dirty shot that is problematic.

On any given basketball possession players can clip themselves trip over a teammates limb, fight through limbs and contact, get stove piped on a screen that doesn't get communicated by a teammate, catch an elbow on a post move/screen/rebound, etc . .. all of which may be legal/incidental. All of which are have more severe physical/emtional repsonse (pain, embarassment, frustration) then a body ending up on top of you temporarily.

Most people IME are less likely to react to someone who ends up ontop of them in the course of making a play on the ball then they are to some jabbing at them, striking at them with limbs or shoving/popping them on rebounds and screens. If I am supposed to call fouls to make sure I'm not encouraging rough play I'm getting as many of those as I can I'm not worried about two bodies that end up on top of one another after I was going to call a jump ball anyway.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

\

This may just be my opinion but if we are talking about rough play a player ending up contacting or on top of another player during the course of a contact sport doesn't seem excessive.

Player on floor and another player jumps on them and you don't see that excessive? Sorry, that just doesn't compute, particularly when the NFHS has explicitly said they want that to be a foul. Why would a player get to jump on top of someone at anytime in the game of basketball? To allow that simply isn't basketball.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Player on floor and another player jumps on them and you don't see that excessive? Sorry, that just doesn't compute, particularly when the NFHS has explicitly said they want that to be a foul. Why would a player get to jump on top of someone at anytime in the game of basketball? To allow that simply isn't basketball.

Quick List of basketball plays/actions:

Pass and Crash where we've got nothing and the play goes the other way. But one player ends up on top of another on the floor.

Two players get tangled up rebounding/running the floor. One stumbles the other trips over them and one lands on a another. No where near the play the both get up and move on.

One player falls/down get knocked down and now on rebounding action trying to avoid stepping player/players stumble and fall landing on each other.

PLayer dives into a the bench of their/opposing team end up on top of someone.

This is just a short list of reasonable things that happen in basketball game where one player ends up ontop of another pretty regularly.

I'm not saying kids can swan dive into opponents with the ball on the floor but the blanket statement of jumping and landing on player while in the midst of making a play has to be uniformly applied as a foul seems nonsensical.

Players are allowed to reach for the ball and get to the ball athletically (jumping/diving/etc). If that play creates contact we've now got some factors to look at: A) is the contact creating any immediate and clear adv/dis that wouldn't have been gained without the contact B) is passing on this type of contact as incedental going to promote/allow/lead to rough play.

There are more aggressive and physically damaging or taxing things that can happen to a player that are perfectly legal than having a player on top of them. So why would this ALWAYS = rough play? If two players are tied up in a loose ball standing and one goes to ground pulling the other player down on top of them would you have a foul then?

I can see and do see situations when the contact is excessive or dangerous and/ creates an unfair adv/dis so in those situations I would call a foul. To say I'm going to automatically call a foul because in the course of a play one player ends up on top of another . . . I don't think so.

Maybe in your mind "jumping on" and in my mind "jumping on" are not covering the same range of possible actions, but to say its absolutely always going to be a foul is not something I'm comfortable saying.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree with you yet some will say that if you block the shot first than all other contact after is not a foul.

Not the same. In the blocked shot case, the ball is often flying into the bleachers or somewhere such that the shooter was not going to be playing it anyway. Additionally, not ALL contact is considered incidental, just some types and amounts of contact.

However, landing on the player who is holding the ball almost certainly prevents them from being able to make some sort of play with the ball.