PDA

View Full Version : Piling On (incidental contact)



bluepenguin
02-23-2010, 02:45 PM
I have a question about the rules with respect to going after loose balls and how they are enforced.
The scrum towards the end of the VT game that stopped play as the officials reviewed the tape to see if a foul should be called on what happened after the whistle blew was created by what I think is a failure of the officials to apply the rules.
If you review the play, it appeared to me that a VT dove after the ball held by LT and knocked LT back a few feet. It seems to me that if you are going for a loose ball it doesn't give you freedom to hammer the opposing player. However, this is exactly what happens time and time again when there is a fight for a loose ball. But officials never seem to call a foul on the player who dives into an opposing player - they always call a jump ball.
Am I incorrect in my understanding of the rules, or are the officials choosing to call this contrary to the rule book?

oldnavy
02-23-2010, 02:57 PM
I have a question about the rules with respect to going after loose balls and how they are enforced.
The scrum towards the end of the VT game that stopped play as the officials reviewed the tape to see if a foul should be called on what happened after the whistle blew was created by what I think is a failure of the officials to apply the rules.
If you review the play, it appeared to me that a VT dove after the ball held by LT and knocked LT back a few feet. It seems to me that if you are going for a loose ball it doesn't give you freedom to hammer the opposing player. However, this is exactly what happens time and time again when there is a fight for a loose ball. But officials never seem to call a foul on the player who dives into an opposing player - they always call a jump ball.
Am I incorrect in my understanding of the rules, or are the officials choosing to call this contrary to the rule book?

This is a great point and one that I have often wondered about. It seems that if the ball is on the floor there is a suspension of the rules with regard to contact. It really is mind blowing. Take the same situation regarding a loose ball if the players are upright. If one player comes in and knocks the other player out of the way to get to the ball, 99% of the time a foul will be called. If the player is on the floor and another player comes in and jumps on that player 99% of the time there is no call...
I think that the same rules should apply regardless of whether a player is on his feet or not. Calling the play caller, play caller..... help with this please!

CDu
02-23-2010, 03:16 PM
I have a question about the rules with respect to going after loose balls and how they are enforced.
The scrum towards the end of the VT game that stopped play as the officials reviewed the tape to see if a foul should be called on what happened after the whistle blew was created by what I think is a failure of the officials to apply the rules.
If you review the play, it appeared to me that a VT dove after the ball held by LT and knocked LT back a few feet. It seems to me that if you are going for a loose ball it doesn't give you freedom to hammer the opposing player. However, this is exactly what happens time and time again when there is a fight for a loose ball. But officials never seem to call a foul on the player who dives into an opposing player - they always call a jump ball.
Am I incorrect in my understanding of the rules, or are the officials choosing to call this contrary to the rule book?

I haven't read enough of the rulebook to know for sure, but I do know that the officials seem to have a very hard time calling these situations consistently. Occasionally, they call a foul. Occasionally, they'll grant one player a timeout. Mostly, they just let the pile occur and then call a jump ball. I'm especially amused/annoyed by the last one, when they will call a jump ball without the ball actually being jointly possessed at all.

I don't know the specific wording, but it seems to me that if you actively create contact (this is not the same as setting a passive screen or holding your position in the paint) and gain advantage from that contact, it should be a foul.

hurleyfor3
02-23-2010, 03:17 PM
Drat, I thought this would be another Roy Williams thread.

The NCAA rules state contact that would normally be excessive is expressly allowed when going for a loose ball, as long as the contact is incidental to trying to gain possession. I'll look up the rule when I have a sec (little thing called work right now).

This was a point of contention in the 2001 national championship game. Jason Williams dove for a loose ball and ran into an Arizona player in the first half. Correctly, nothing was called, although most of the Metrodome booed.

hurleyfor3
02-23-2010, 03:29 PM
Definition #40, "Incidental Contact": Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

I'm not familiar with the actual play, but would assume that once a player has gained possession any further contact with said player should be a foul.

oldnavy
02-23-2010, 04:30 PM
Definition #40, "Incidental Contact": Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

I'm not familiar with the actual play, but would assume that once a player has gained possession any further contact with said player should be a foul.

The confusing wording of this is "incidental". When I see a player on the floor, holding a ball, and then a player jumps on top of that player and trys to wrestle the ball away, I do not think of that as incidental contact. Now if two players are diving for the ball on the floor and hit each other as they are going for the ball, then that should be called incidental. I think the refs let too much of the rough play go on the floor.

gep
02-23-2010, 04:43 PM
Definition #40, "Incidental Contact": Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

I'm not familiar with the actual play, but would assume that once a player has gained possession any further contact with said player should be a foul.

Maybe this is another point of confusion / interpretation.