Gonzaga vs Duke Push with ball (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

You are really working hard to come up with crazy hypotheticals to prove your point. I say tomato, you say elephant.

You are coming up with your all too common ways of avoiding the question.

Whenever someone sidesteps a question I know not to expect anything more constructive than "that's just what needs to be called" with nothing to back it up in the way of logical argument or a rules citation.

I know in my world if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 I have personal foul. If A1 intentionally pushes B1 I have an intentional foul.

In your world, with no explanation (other than some stupid reference to elephants and tomatoes), if A1 intentionally pushes B1 with the ball you have a personal foul, and if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 with the ball you have nothing. But no one is supposed to question your logic.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know in my world if A1 unintentionally pushes B1 I have personal foul. If A1 intentionally pushes B1 I have an intentional foul.

So to be clear when a player that is crowded pushes a defender, or even when an offensive player goes for a layup and uses the off hand to clear away the defender you are calling that an intentional foul? both are intentional pushes, and you don't just call a PC foul but you go big ol X over your head?

No one's avoiding a question, when the question is based on weird hypotheticals. How did we go from player with ball uses ball to create separation to "what if the ball was blocked?" to "what if a player looses his balance and while falling makes contact with the ball and a defender?" to who knows whats next.

You're overthinking something simple IMO. I don't see any difference when a player extends his arms to create space and he is either using his hands or his hands have a ball in it.

[just another ref]

A blocked shot is a play on the ball. The OP used the ball as an extension of the hand to make an illegal play.

As stated above, there is no comparison.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

So to be clear when a player that is crowded pushes a defender, or even when an offensive player goes for a layup and uses the off hand to clear away the defender you are calling that an intentional foul? both are intentional pushes, and you don't just call a PC foul but you go big ol X over your head?

....

If he uses the off-hand to clear out, I'm calling a foul whether it was done intentionally or not.

In your play, you are only calling a foul if it there was intent in using the basketball. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, what does intent have to do with it? You are the one who brought intent into the conversation. So again, logic is not computing in your statement.

Originally Posted by deecee

Comparing a blocked shot to a willful use of the ball to cause displacement is 2 completely different actions and cannot be compared.

[deecee]

Because a blocked shot and using a ball to push an opponent are 2 completely different actions which have 2 different intentions.

1. The intent is to prevent a ball from entering the basket
2. The intent is to create space as to gain an advantage

Intent doesn't dictate the foul, but a foul is caused because of a specific intent.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

Because a blocked shot and using a ball to push an opponent are 2 completely different actions which have 2 different intentions.

1. The intent is to prevent a ball from entering the basket
2. The intent is to create space as to gain an advantage

Intent doesn't dictate the foul, but a foul is caused because of a specific intent.

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

If your argument is that a player holding the ball and using that to cause displacement versus a player who blocks the ball and the ricocheting ball hits and opponent and causes displacement is the same thing then we are to far apart for me to find any common ground on this issue with you. Which is a perfectly acceptable position I think.

[JRutledge]

Until someone shows me a rule that says contact with the ball is the same as contact with any other body part, then I will stick to my position that this cannot be a player control foul. There is a reason we have a held ball over a foul. There is a reason that if you touch the ball on a out of bounds thrower it is treated differently than if you touch the thrower. We get on people often for making calls by making up their interpretation, well this is a the highest level of making up a rule to fit a logic. And once again, I do not see players trying this all over the place because they would get the ball stolen and the coach would ask them "Why did you do that, you lost the ball?"

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

If your argument is that a player holding the ball and using that to cause displacement versus a player who blocks the ball and the ricocheting ball hits and opponent and causes displacement is the same thing then we are to far apart for me to find any common ground on this issue with you. Which is a perfectly acceptable position I think.

I am talking about intent. You brought up purposely creating space. I've long moved past that block shot scenario on to the intent of A1

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Displacement is displacement. If A1 displaces B1 with the ball, intent should not dictate whether or not you call a foul. If A1 accidentally displaces B1 with the ball why would it be any less of a foul?

Here's the most cogent argument I can come up with for that position.

This is an advantage not intended by the rule. If the player is using the loophole intentionally to gain an advantage, then close the loophole and call the foul.

Like I said before, though, I can't imagine a situation where I see it so clearly I can tell his hand didn't make contact. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, I suppose.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Here's the most cogent argument I can come up with for that position.

This is an advantage not intended by the rule. If the player is using the loophole intentionally to gain an advantage, then close the loophole and call the foul.

Like I said before, though, I can't imagine a situation where I see it so clearly I can tell his hand didn't make contact. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, I suppose.

For that matter (and if you really wanted to get silly about the whole thing), you could say that B doesn't really commit a blocking foul (or A doesn't really push off) if the contact with A is only through B's shirt since the two players never really touch. Anyone trying to make that argument? :/

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

Here's the most cogent argument I can come up with for that position.

This is an advantage not intended by the rule. If the player is using the loophole intentionally to gain an advantage, then close the loophole and call the foul.

Like I said before, though, I can't imagine a situation where I see it so clearly I can tell his hand didn't make contact. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, I suppose.

I don't see myself ever calling a PF for someone "using the basketball" to create space/displace/etc. If someone else wants to call it, that's fine with me. But what I won't accept is any official telling me my position is wrong by rule, yet they have no rule, case play, or interp to cite to indicate that I am wrong.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't see myself ever calling a PF for someone "using the basketball" to create space/displace/etc. If someone else wants to call it, that's fine with me. But what I won't accept is any official telling me my position is wrong by rule, yet they have no rule, case play, or interp to cite to indicate that I am wrong.

The sticking point here seems to be that we want contact using the ball to be treated differently then the rest of the equipment being used. We don't judge contact with a sweat band, arm sleeve, jersey, sneaker differently becuse they made contact with the item/possession between the body parts? Easy solution is to treat the ball the same way. Kid uses sneaker (with foot inside) to trip a player, kid uses jersey (filled with chest) to bump a player off the spot, player uses ball (held in hands) to create space by pushing off . . . call the fouls.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

The sticking point here seems to be that we want contact using the ball to be treated differently then the rest of the equipment being used. We don't judge contact with a sweat band, arm sleeve, jersey, sneaker differently becuse they made contact with the item/possession between the body parts? Easy solution is to treat the ball the same way. Kid uses sneaker (with foot inside) to trip a player, kid uses jersey (filled with chest) to bump a player off the spot, player uses ball (held in hands) to create space by pushing off . . . call the fouls.

Players don't wear basketballs. Everything you listed belongs solely to each player and moves with the player. They are all part of the individual player's uniform and equipment. They are treated as one and the same as the player. If I grab a players jersey I get charged with a foul for illegally contacting that player; no such punishment for grabbing the basketball.

The ball is singular and separate from the player. So that argument doesn't sway me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't see myself ever calling a PF for someone "using the basketball" to create space/displace/etc. If someone else wants to call it, that's fine with me. But what I won't accept is any official telling me my position is wrong by rule, yet they have no rule, case play, or interp to cite to indicate that I am wrong.

Not only do they not have such a cite, they don't even have a cite to indicate they're even possibly right. Personally, I think it falls under the unintended advantage clause, but this isn't a major issue, IMO.