Gonzaga vs Duke Push with ball (Video)
 

At 1:28 of the first half Sabonis for Gonzaga was called for a PC foul. I think the lead made the call so he probably couldn't see that the contact was with the basketball. We have discussed this play here and some say this can't be a personal foul. (I disagree) This is the first time I recall seeing this play actually happen.

And I don't disagree with them unless it is blatantly flagrant.....here comes the rules guys with their justification ( come on Billy Mac ) ☺☺☺☺

I saw the play. I'd call that a foul every time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Scratching My Head ...
 

As would I. But on a written test, I'm not sure how I would answer it? Probably a personal foul, but I would lose sleep until I got the test graded. Especially if the question stated that the official charged a technical foul, followed by the question, "Was the official correct?". IAABO Refresher Exams are known to have a few odd questions, and a few odd answers, each year.

Before I joined the Forum, ten years ago, I would have called this a personal foul in a New York minute, but threads regarding this situation have made me question whether, or not, the written rule matches the situation exactly.

I wouldn't call it a personal foul. I had a partner this season who did. (Testing tapatalk with this post)

+1

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.

We're able to get 10 wrong on a test. I wouldn't sweat this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not see the play in question (was attending a mandatory OhioASA umpires meeting), but I am in agreement with the above, this is a PCF each and every time at the very least.

MTD, Sr.

I am not calling a PC foul with the ball when I can knock the ball out of your hand or grab the ball. The only way I would call something it would have to be a technical for using the ball in an unsporting fashion.

Peace

Like most things I assume this is a learned behaviour. I doubt a college freshmen who's played all over the world got stressed and suddenly in a moment of desperate improvisation thought "I'll push him with the ball and see what happens!"

If he's doing it he's done it before. If it has 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.

I have never seen anyone expose the ball like that by using it and bringing it to a defender so they can easily steal it. If it is taught, there are not many defenders smart enough to realize he just gave a better opportunity to take the ball.

Peace

Since the hand is part of the ball the ball is part of the hand. PC foul all the way, why should the rules care that the defender had a "better" chance at a steal?

Then we should call all fouls based on who had the best chance at a positive outcome.

What rule says that? The only rule that says that we pass on contact is when hand is hit when it is contact with the ball. Nothing in the rules says the actions of a hand has anything to do with contact to call a foul.

I also did not say the rules had anything to do with a better chance to steal the ball. But if you extend my arms into your body, I can steal the ball easier. That is probably why you do not see this very often (at least I don't). Heck players are taught to protect the ball, not give the defender a better chance to take it from them.

Peace

My basketball doesn't have hands attached to it. (Neither does my baseball bat).

No Fence Sitting Allowed ...
 

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.

An Interpretation For A Technical Foul ...
 

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:

Personal Foul May Be The Way To Go ...
 

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?

Contact ???
 

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

A Woman's Prerogative ...
 

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

Wait. I've changed my mind.

Wait again.

Lover's Leap ...
 

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

Is That Your Final Answer (Regis Philbin) ...
 

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?

Am I Coming, Or Going ???
 

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

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

It reads "by extending arms," not by extending the ball.

I hope you are joking.

Can you extend the ball without using your arms?

So I guess if a player grabs a rebound then taps the ball against the backboard we are going to call a T for smacking the backboard since the ball and the hand are the same thing?

Nope, one must extend ARMS to push. That is exactly what 10-6-1 says. What if the player doesn't have the ball? Do you think that the rule doesn't apply to him? The rule is clearly written to cover action with the arms.

So in the OP you don't have a PC foul. You're going with a T or no call at all?

A T? The foul was not flagrant, intentional, or unsporting. But there was displacement and advantage gained.


So?

I have nothing. I would also have nothing if the defender blocked a shot attempt while the ball was still in the offensive player's hands and the force applied to the ball caused the offensive player to be displaced or fall to the ground.

So you would recommend teaching this tactic. It could be useful when a player has a big size advantage and can palm the ball. Extend the ball and give the opponent a shove, thus creating some space, and score.

If a player uses the ball to push an opponent, the chances are slim that I'll be able to see that there was no hand to body contact. I'm not that good.

I think that's what happened in the o p. But I don't see that it makes any difference.

And as these responses prove, common sense doesn't always kick in. Here the official calls a player control foul which no one questions. The game continues smoothly. Imagine no calling that play and then saying to the coach it's a no call because he used to "ball" to push off. The game does not continue smoothly.

You can say that I'm ignoring the rule, but I am following the spirit of the rule.

You haven't answered Nevada's question about the blocked shot.

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

Oh, so now intent matters? If A1 loses his balance and in the process sticks the ball out and accidentally knocks down a defender, it's not a foul?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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? :/

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.

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.

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.

And I have no problem with any official having that outlook on the play. My opinion about play-calling is that you only call what you can explain. Make the call, and if the coach asks, be willing to confidently say that's why you made the call. But some folks here acts as if there is some black-and-white reference that makes such an interpretation an absolute.

Agreed. I also don't have an issue with someone who might argue that if you think the kid is trying to take advantage of a loophole, just stick him with the T to put a stop to it.

100% agree. I had a play this year that would have been a blocking foul had the ball not been between the players. I no called it and my game did not continue smoothly.

So you feel as if you should have called a block even though the contact was with the ball?

Yep, I do.

Sorry but WOW!!!

Peace

Well, I guess that is the logical next step if one would call a PC in such situations.

The one or two times I may have this in the futurer (never had it yet), I'll just live with explaining why I didn't make the call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBy1Zd07tuM

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BBy1Zd07tuM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There was a lot of contact with the shoulder and arm, not the ball.

Good PC foul BTW.

Peace

Yes, the ball had nothing to do with why this was called. Not even sure if the ball ever did touch the defender. If it did, it was after the contact that led to the PC foul.

Seriously?

Uh, yeah, seriously. :rolleyes:

He contacts the defender with the entirety of his right arm, including the back of his right hand. There is a perfect shot of it around the 17 second mark. Do you think his right hand disappeared somehow when he made the move? He is pressing the ball into his right hand with his left hand. He never puts the ball in front, it stays behind his right hand.

Classic triple whistle.

I agree that there is contact with the forearm and the back of the hand. But are you saying that if he drops the right arm and has the ball in only the left hand here and gives the same shove you would have a no call?

I am not calling a foul in your situation. There would have to be contact with arm and shoulder to have a foul in your situation.

Peace

You are correct, I will not call a foul if the ball is used for the push.