The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 05, 2015, 02:18pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
That would make sense. I just hadn't heard that the defender being adversely impacted was the deciding factor on whether to call the foul on the offense.
It's another way of wording the incidental contact rule.

"Contact which does not.... should be ruled incidental."

I don't have my book with me, so I'm hesitant to try to replicate the wording. Essentially, anything that doesn't hinder the opponent from participating in normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 05, 2015, 02:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
c. There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact.

IMO...the rule allows the defenders to move laterally (not hip check) to guard the player. Since it was less than 3 feet, the dribbler has the greater responsibility of the contact and a foul on the dribbler in the OP could be supported by this rule, as long as the hip check was intended to close the gap rather than re-route the dribbler.

But, very few fans and players are aware of this rule. I was not aware of this rule until I became an official. Additionally, 3 feet is pretty wide for a basketball player to go between.

Calling a foul on B would not be questioned.
That rule doesn't really change how any situation would be called if that rule were not present. It is only drawing your attention to the fact that, when the space is limited, the offensive player may need to create contact to squeeze through and, if they do, the foul should be on them.

It clarifies the fact that nothing about the rules requires that either defender in such a case must take the contact in the center of the chest if they were in their spots legally. Contact with one or both legally positioned defenders' shoulders/sides/hips/etc. because the space was so tight is not a foul on the defense.

It doesn't, however, change the requirements of legal guarding which prohibit moving towards the opponent at the time of contact. If the shooter/dribbler is going through and already is in the space, movement to close the gap (hip check or otherwise) is not legal defense.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 05, 2015, 02:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
That rule doesn't really change how any situation would be called if that rule were not present. It is only drawing your attention to the fact that, when the space is limited, the offensive player may need to create contact to squeeze through and, if they do, the foul should be on them.

It clarifies the fact that nothing about the rules requires that either defender in such a case must take the contact in the center of the chest if they were in their spots legally. Contact with one or both legally positioned defenders' shoulders/sides/hips/etc. because the space was so tight is not a foul on the defense.

It doesn't, however, change the requirements of legal guarding which prohibit moving towards the opponent at the time of contact. If the shooter/dribbler is going through and already is in the space, movement to close the gap (hip check or otherwise) is not legal defense.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 05, 2015, 06:02pm
rsl rsl is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
Calling a foul on B would not be questioned.
This is very true, and my no-call was questioned because everyone in the gym saw the hip. We can't make calls based on how they will be received, but a foul on B would have been a safer call.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll take this as a learning experience.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 06, 2015, 09:38am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsl View Post
This is very true, and my no-call was questioned because everyone in the gym saw the hip. We can't make calls based on how they will be received, but a foul on B would have been a safer call.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll take this as a learning experience.
You're right not to worry about what's "safer" 99% of the time. Fortunately, this time the safer call is the right call (by rule).

Good topic for a lot of people to learn from.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 06, 2015, 12:26pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsl View Post
....B2 gives him a hip check and causes him to lose the ball out of bounds.
I don't see how this couldn't be anything but a blocking foul on B2.

I like to see this kind of contact through. That is, if A1 can play through the contact and pass B2, I'd rule legal (or a "play on," in a sense). However, if the contact causes A1 to violate, the onus goes to B2. Blocking foul.
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 06, 2015, 12:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
I don't see how this couldn't be anything but a blocking foul on B2.

I like to see this kind of contact through. That is, if A1 can play through the contact and pass B2, I'd rule legal (or a "play on," in a sense). However, if the contact causes A1 to violate, the onus goes to B2. Blocking foul.
+1. Officiate by RSBQ in this instance.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 06, 2015, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Good discussion but I'm having a hard time envisioning any "hip-check that causes a player to lose the ball" NOT being a foul.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW - 2003 NFHS Football Rule Changes (as written by the NFHS Rules Committee) KWH Football 27 Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:30am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1