Not to skew this at all, but this is the type stuff that will get a call in high school and won't at the next level. Very heady play to say the least, but the next level there won't be a whistle. There will be a guy with the other jersey throwin' it up court on a runout.

Something for everyone to think about...the SAME play happened in the Holmes- Dixie game with Hatton lunging in to a defender towards the end of the game attempting a 3 and it was a no call.

 

Editing that video now. When I get to the play, I will post it and you guys can compare.

I'd word it an offensive Intentional Foul. Just like a charge, an offensive player can not lower his shoulder into a defender to force contact when the defender is not giving up his position. Just like when a defender fouls a player and it is called intentional when he isn't going for the ball etc. this should be the same on the offensive player. Flops should also be a technical in the rule book. I know they aren't rules but they should be.

 

That was about as blatant as you can get and unfortunately he has gotten away with just that and why should he change? He's not been forced to change and he gets the calls. I would do the exact same if I were him.

 

Your rule already exists. You call it "defender is not giving up his position." Rulebook calls it legal guarding position. Again, the official on this call didn't think Pangallo had it since he determined Pangallo was moving forward. If Pangallo did have LGP in the official's eyes THEN he either has nothing or possibly a player control ie charge call.

 

It's all about LGP being established and maintained. Has nothing to do with what the offensive player does.

As an official you know that "coming down on the court without making contact with Ruthsatz" is irrelevant.

 

The rule is very clear. If the defender is coming forward and makes contact it's always a foul on the defender. So the only debate here is if Pangallo maintained verticality.

 

You also know that the defender doesn't get bailed out just because the shooter initiated contact. It's all about LGP.

 

I agree with everything you say. I made the point about Pangallo coming to the ground with no contact as that i thought maintained verticality enough to maintain legal guarding position in my mind. I have no issue with an offensive player initiating contact, but the lowering of the shoulder into the defender would have made it an offensive foul in my eyes. I think you could show a room referees this same video and there would a lot of debate on this. This ref was in the correct spot on the floor, was looking right at the play and made the call without hesitation. In his mind, it was a defensive foul. I dont think there is a clear cut right or wrong on this play, just the official's judgement that is making the call

I've never seen an offensive intentional foul called, have you?

 

Here is the definition I found for intentional foul

 

Intentional foul: A foul that occurs when a player makes illegal contact with an opposing player without intending to get the ball.

 

How can an offensive player be called for it if they already have the ball?

 

I think the rule needs to be changed and that should be an intentional foul.

 

Flagrant foul could be called on the offense and maybe that is what should of happened in this case.

 

Flagrant Foul – Unnecessary or excessive contact against an opponent.

That describes this play to a tee. It was deffinatly unnecessary AND excessive contact made by Nick.

 

 

That definition of intentional foul is not what the rulebook uses. It is one example of a play where an intentional can be called.

 

Loose ball. Defense is going for the ball and is about to get it Offense reaches out and grabs the defender by his jersey with both hands. Intentional foul on the offense.

I agree with everything you say. I made the point about Pangallo coming to the ground with no contact as that i thought maintained verticality enough to maintain legal guarding position in my mind. I have no issue with an offensive player initiating contact, but the lowering of the shoulder into the defender would have made it an offensive foul in my eyes. I think you could show a room referees this same video and there would a lot of debate on this. This ref was in the correct spot on the floor, was looking right at the play and made the call without hesitation. In his mind, it was a defensive foul. I dont think there is a clear cut right or wrong on this play, just the official's judgement that is making the call

 

My only contention with your point is that you seem to say that when the offensive player lowered his should and jumped forward that it was automatically an offensive foul. That's not what the rulebook says. If the defender is coming forward it's always on the defensive player.

Something for everyone to think about...the SAME play happened in the Holmes- Dixie game with Hatton lunging in to a defender towards the end of the game attempting a 3 and it was a no call.

 

Editing that video now. When I get to the play, I will post it and you guys can compare.

 

Love to see it.

That definition of intentional foul is not what the rulebook uses. It is one example of a play where an intentional can be called.

 

Loose ball. Defense is going for the ball and is about to get it Offense reaches out and grabs the defender by his jersey with both hands. Intentional foul on the offense.

 

Clyde ... I did a google search and found one place where it states:

 

Excessive, non-flagrant contact can be ruled an intentional foul.

Not to skew this at all, but this is the type stuff that will get a call in high school and won't at the next level. Very heady play to say the least, but the next level there won't be a whistle. There will be a guy with the other jersey throwin' it up court on a runout.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that. Whole different game.

Excessive, non-flagrant contact can be ruled an intentional foul. An intentional foul can be ruled a personal foul. It does not have to be a technical foul.

 

With that I ask, was the contact created by Ruthsatz and was it excessive? If yes, it could be called an intentional foul.

Yes, very much so.

Something for everyone to think about...the SAME play happened in the Holmes- Dixie game with Hatton lunging in to a defender towards the end of the game attempting a 3 and it was a no call.

 

Editing that video now. When I get to the play, I will post it and you guys can compare.

 

I am interested to see the replay of that one. As I watched both games I was dumbfounded how it got called in the first but not the second. I think this call (NCC/CCH) was a bad one but will reserve judgement on the Hatton play as I moved seats and couldn't tell if the defender came out or not.

My only contention with your point is that you seem to say that when the offensive player lowered his should and jumped forward that it was automatically an offensive foul. That's not what the rulebook says. If the defender is coming forward it's always on the defensive

 

I didnt believe he was coming forward at time it happened. It from where i was that he was went straight up. Look at the video in slow motion, it is still tough to tell. This could have been called either way and there would have been discussion. Tough call to make. That is why the tell us to be in the right spot and just call what you see.

 

I didnt believe he was coming forward at time it happened. It from where i was that he was went straight up. Look at the video in slow motion, it is still tough to tell. This could have been called either way and there would have been discussion. Tough call to make. That is why the tell us to be in the right spot and just call what you see.

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly that's it's really close.

This play is a perfect example of how an official has to call it by the actual rulebook and not by "what feels fair."

 

I fully get that that it doesn't seem fair that an offensive player can initiate the contact and gain benefit from it. However, the rulebook is what officials have to go by - not what seems or feels fair.

While it's hard to tell from this angle, it would appear that Pangallo's left arm is coming down and is the first thing to make contact with the shooter. Obviously he jumped forward, but not sure that is the measure. Previous threads have talked about Pangallo being "straight up", that is not the case. I don't think it's a no call either as all the action is right on the ball and the contact exists. Like it or not, I think this is a foul on defender.