Post move

onetime1

8th grade girls basketball. Player receives ball in post and squares to basket. Immediately takes ball and uses it to provide force and pushes defensive player away then shoots 6 foot shot which goes in. Can this be player control even though no contact has occurred?

JRutledge

All fouls that are not unsporting, require contact.

That should answer your question.

Peace

bob jenkins

onetime1 wrote
8th grade girls basketball. Player receives ball in post and squares to basket. Immediately takes ball and uses it to provide force and pushes defensive player away then shoots 6 foot shot which goes in. Can this be player control even though no contact has occurred?

My take: By a strict reading of the rule, no. In all practical senses, yes.

And, it's been discussed here with several on each side of this.

APG

bob jenkins wrote
My take: By a strict reading of the rule, no. In all practical senses, yes.

And, it's been discussed here with several on each side of this.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/93193-pushing-defender-away-ball.html

I agree with Bob.

JetMetFan

onetime1 wrote
8th grade girls basketball. Player receives ball in post and squares to basket. Immediately takes ball and uses it to provide force and pushes defensive player away then shoots 6 foot shot which goes in. Can this be player control even though no contact has occurred?

It should be a PC. A1 created illegal contact that put B1 at a disadvantage. If A1 was driving to the basket and hit B1 with the ball as part of the habitual motion of her shot that's one thing. In the OP, A1 purposely used the ball to create contact to give herself an advantage.

Adam

Put me in the "agree with bob" camp.

BillyMac

Rule 4 includes a definition of a foul that describes contact, in general, not just body to body contact:

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements.

However, once one gets to Rule 10, the various types of illegal contact all involve various types of body to body contact, e.g., hand, leg, body, arm.

Camron Rust

Adam wrote
Put me in the "agree with bob" camp.

Put me in the "agree with Adam" camp....which also puts me in the "agree with bob" camp. 😀

JRutledge

Put me in the not agreeing with Bob, Adam and Camron camp. You cannot call a foul IMO without contact from another person's body part. Someone can take the ball away or knock it out of your hand. I am not calling a foul just because the ball was used to cause contact.

Peace

johnny d

While I agree in principle with what JRut says, I vaguely recall a college clarification or ruling coming directly from Art Heyland a few years ago when the swinging the elbows rule first came out indicating that a FF1/intentional foul should be called when the offensive player contacts the defensive player with the ball, above the defensive players shoulders, while excessively swinging their elbows, even though there was not contact with the offensive players arms. I can see how one can extrapolate that ruling to the situation described in the op, especially considering there is not anything written specifically about that type of play.

JRutledge

That is an interesting point Johnny, but I do not believe this conversation was about NCAA rules. And I would have to see that ruling to be comfortable making that kind of call, certainly at that level.

Peace

JetMetFan

My high school interpreter has this as a PC. I’d be interested to learn what other interpreters say about it.

just another ref

4-45-5: The offensive player............may not "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane, which is a foul.

Clearing out by using the ball is still clearing out.

[deleted]

JRutledge wrote
All fouls that are not unsporting, require contact.

That should answer your question.

There was contact, from the ball. I totally agree though. No contact with the ball, no foul.

JRutledge

AremRed wrote
There was contact, from the ball. I totally agree though. No contact with the ball, no foul.

Well then get in the weight room or take the darn ball away. 😉

Peace

[deleted]

JRutledge wrote
Well then get in the weight room or take the darn ball away. 😉

Peace

Let's take a look at NFHS 4-19-1. I see a foul defined as "illegal contact....which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements".

I don't see anything that says illegal contact requires flesh-on-flesh contact. Does forcefully using the ball to push an opponent away prevent that opponent from performing normal defensive movements? Yes.

JRutledge

AremRed wrote
Let's take a look at NFHS 4-19-1. I see a foul defined as "illegal contact....which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements".

I don't see anything that says illegal contact requires flesh-on-flesh contact. Does forcefully using the ball to push an opponent away prevent that opponent from performing normal defensive movements? Yes.

That is great that you have read this rule, but you cannot read a rule and then say, "See...there it is."

There are other rules in the rulebook. And 10-6 clearly makes a reference to other specific body parts and never mentions the ball. So how can you have illegal contact when contact is not defined in the rulebook with anything but body parts?

You are right the rule does not say flesh to flesh, but you would think if they considered contact with a jersey, hair or the ball that would be defined.

Peace

[deleted]

JRutledge wrote
That is great that you have read this rule, but you cannot read a rule and then say, "See...there it is."

There are other rules in the rulebook. And 10-6 clearly makes a reference to other specific body parts and never mentions the ball. So how can you have illegal contact when contact is not defined in the rulebook with anything but body parts?

You are right the rule does not say flesh to flesh, but you would think if they considered contact with a jersey, hair or the ball that would be defined.

Peace

By using some common sense we can realize that while it is tough to foul someone with your hair or jersey, it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a player can foul another player using the ball.

10-6 does not specifically make reference to ball contact, but that does not preclude such a possibility.

JRutledge

AremRed wrote
By using some common sense we can realize that while it is tough to foul someone with your hair or jersey, it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a player can foul another player using the ball.

10-6 does not specifically make reference to ball contact, but that does not preclude such a possibility.

The rules are not always written for the sake of common sense. Now could there be other violation of rules if the ball is used to cause contact? Of course, that is what the unsporting rules are for.

And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair. That is why I said it was a stretch.

Peace

[deleted]

JRutledge wrote
And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair.

I don't understand this sentence at all, could you please clarify?