Gonzaga vs Duke Push with ball (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd call that a foul every time.

Originally Posted by deecee

Using the ball as you own personal mechanism to displace an opponent may not be specifically spelled out in the rule book for some folks on here but here is a spot where common sense should kick in.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

... consistently been called a foul before he probably wouldn't be doing it now and at this level. That would tend to imply that there are a lot of officials who do not see it as a foul.

For most (maybe not all) of us, it's not a matter of calling, or not calling a foul, it's a matter of calling a personal foul (player control foul), or a technical foul? There are differences in the penalty for each type that makes this matter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The only way I would call something it would have to be a technical for using the ball in an unsporting fashion.

Sounds good, but so does the personal foul option. JRutledge's technical foul is probably more rule based, and would certainly be easier to explain to a coach, athletic director, or an assigner, since it's right there in the rulebook in black, and white.

Edit: Or is it? See below:

[BillyMac]

4-19-1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live ...

4-19-5: A technical foul is:
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead ...

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

Is "ball to opponent" interpreted as contact? I would think so.

Unsporting? Probably not because it must be noncontact.

Technical? Probably not because it must be noncontact, and if deemed flagrant, or intentional, the ball must be dead.

It probably comes down to how one defines contact. Must it be player to player contact, or can it be ball to player contact?

Based on how one defines contact determines whether one should charge a personal foul, or a technical foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-19-1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live ...

4-19-5: A technical foul is:
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead ...

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

Is "ball to opponent" interpreted as contact? I would think so.

Unsporting? Probably not because it must be noncontact.

Technical? Probably not because it must be noncontact, and if deemed flagrant, or intentional, the ball must be dead.

It probably comes down to how one defines contact. Must it be player to player contact, or can it be ball to player contact?

Based on how one defines contact determines whether one should charge a personal foul, or a technical foul.

The ball to person contact question is easy to answer Billy.
What type of foul would you charge if a player deliberately threw the ball into his opponent's chest?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball to person contact question is easy to answer Billy. What type of foul would you charge if a player deliberately threw the ball into his opponent's chest?

Live ball? Sounds unsporting to me, but I don't think that it's as easy as you make it sound (see definitions above).

[Nevadaref]

Live ball: throwing the ball into an opponent is what, Billy? Personal foul or technical foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is "ball to opponent" interpreted as contact? I would think so.

I need more than you saying this on this board. I need an official ruling and mostly from my state people. This has never been addressed directly.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unsporting? Probably not because it must be noncontact.

As said before, what would you call otherwise if someone through a ball or hit an opponent with the ball? I know I am calling a T.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Technical? Probably not because it must be noncontact, and if deemed flagrant, or intentional, the ball must be dead.

I guess we have to call fouls for a blocked shot if you knock a player down if they only touched the basketball. After all, why treat contact with the ball any different? If it is all the same, then your logic we cannot differentiate unless we are making up our own standards of when the rules are applied right?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It probably comes down to how one defines contact. Must it be player to player contact, or can it be ball to player contact?

Based on how one defines contact determines whether one should charge a personal foul, or a technical foul.

Well without some interpretations, I think you are making a leap. If the NF says that is a foul, that is one thing. But you or I saying it is is a totally different thing. And it would be hard if no one else is seeing the rule application that way and has no way to back it up other than personal feelings. We get on people on this site for not following the rules, but your position is not following the rules. IF someone said, "I am not calling that" why is your position any better if there is no specific rules support.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Live ball: throwing the ball into an opponent is what, Billy? Personal foul or technical foul.

It seems unsporting, but I'm leaning toward personal.

Wait. I've changed my mind.

Wait again.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well without some interpretations, I think you are making a leap.

I haven't made the leap yet. I'm asking questions, and giving some possible answers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I haven't made the leap yet. I'm asking questions, and giving some possible answers.

I cannot make that leap at all based on an internet discussion board conversation. I need some support on this one. And since there is no rules saying you are right, I have to do nothing in a situation I have never seen personally.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Final answer: Technical foul, as long as everyone considers the situation to be a noncontact situation. It's noncontact, but it's still gonna hurt.

Am I right?

If not, can I try again?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... no rules saying you are right ...

Right? I've been hedging on this throughout the entire thread.

One thing that you are 100% right about JRutledge: I too would love to get a NFHS interpretation on this situation.

Note: Right now I'm leaning toward unsporting technical foul, but I may change my mind again after I sleep on it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Right? I've been hedging on this throughout the entire thread.

One thing that you are 100% right about JRutledge: I too would love to get a NFHS interpretation on this situation.

Note: Right now I'm leaning toward unsporting technical foul, but I may change my mind again after I sleep on it.

I would not call a T unless it was forceful contact. Just like I would not call a T just because a player throws the ball off another player to save the ball. That is basketball unless it is done purposely to hurt or harm. To me if you are pushed with the ball and cannot make a play on the ball, then so be it for you.

Peace

[just another ref]

10-6-1: A player shall not ....push........by extending arms......


The fact that this player is holding the basketball is not significant. It is a personal foul.

There is no comparison between the OP and a player deliberately throwing the ball at another player.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

10-6-1: A player shall not ....push........by extending arms......


The fact that this player is holding the basketball is not significant. It is a personal foul.

There is no comparison between the OP and a player deliberately throwing the ball at another player.

When you give us a Casebook Play, I might accept that. Otherwise you are using your standard, not the one everyone agrees with that interpretation.

Peace