Ref Class Presents: Tough Calls Ref, Volume 6 (CRAZY PLAYS) 🤔

The Professor's Thoughts:
Play 1) Incidental Contact (Play-On)
Play 2) Tough Play, Incidental Contact (Play-On)
Play 3) Bench Warning for both teams
Play 4) Free-throws with the lane cleared (no time)
Play 5) Player-Control foul on black #12
Play 6) Flop warning on black #3
Play 7) ???
Play 8) Incidental Contact (Play-On)
Play 9) Technical foul on white #5
Edit with InShot: v.inshotapp.ne...
Music: Bloomer
Musician: EnjoyMusic
URL: enjoymusic.ai

[@jamesday3591]

Professor, this one I really have never understood. Please give me some clarity here. On play 6, the offensive player clearly extends his arm, pushing off of his stationary defender in order to create space. I understand, in practical application, that this is never considered a foul, but everything I know from a rules standpoint tells me that this is a foul. What am I missing? How is this not a foul? Extending the arms to obstruct that path of another player (offensive or defensive) is one of the expressed definitions of a blocking foul. Pushing another player with sufficient force to dislodge their established stationary position is also an integral part of the definition of another type of foul. Again, I know that this is never called, but please explain to me what I'm missing or misunderstanding.

[@RefClass]

Rule 4-27 teaches us about incidental contact. Article 1 states: The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. So, if the ruling official believed there was displacement that caused the defender to fall in that manner, a foul should be ruled. If not, the defender should be penalized with a flop warning (rule 4-49).
-The Professor

[@jamesday3591]

@@RefClass Okay. Would that mean that if an offensive player grabs a defensive player, and prevents the defensive player from moving, that since there was no displacement, it's not a foul? I had the understanding that any impedance of an opposing player by the use of "arms extended" (meaning, from the elbow, not the shoulder) constituted one form of a blocking foul: "illegally blocking the path of the opponent". Am I incorrect in that understanding? If I'm not, then isn't the offensive player impeding the defensive player from following him by extending his arm into the defensive player's chest a foul, not because he dislodges his opponent, but because he impeded his path with arms extended? Thanks for the conversation on this.

[@RefClass]

Grabing your opponent is illegal (foul). Displacing your opponent is also illegal (foul). Embellishing incidental contact is a team warning ( team technical foul for each subsequent offense). The impedance of an opponent with extended arms and elbows are all forms of blocking fouls. The shoulder would depend on the legal guarding position prior to the point of contact. Officials are trained to determine the legal/illegal status of the defender prior to the point of contact. This helps to determine which player committed the foul. Legal defender = no foul. Illegal defender = foul. Both players committing illegal acts = double foul. Incidental contact followed by embellishment by either/both players in an attempt to fool the official into calling a foul = flop/fake being fouled warning.
-The Professor

[@jamesday3591]

@@RefClass Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate it, and it seems to corroborate my understanding, that since White 5 directly impedes Black 3's movement by extending his arm (by pushing off), it's a blocking foul by White 5, followed by (potential) embellishment by Black 3. There "might" be embellishment by Black 3 in order to highlight the blocking foul by White 5 (but not in an attempt "fool" the official, so not a flop, and just bringing attention to White 5's blocking foul), but would "definitely" be a foul by White 5, since White 5 clearly and strongly pushes off of Black 3 with arm fully extended, with the obvious (and effective) attempt to create space by impeding Black 3's movement. So, again, since White 5 is directly impeding Black 3's movement with "arms extended", how is this not a blocking foul by White 5?
I apologize if I come across as argumentative, as I sincerely do not intend to be. I honestly don't understand (especially after your explanation that seems to me to confirm that my understanding is correct) what you're seeing that I'm missing.

[@RefClass]

​@jamesday3591
No need to apologize. Let's go over the checklist. Did White #5 contact Black #3, yes. Was the contact incidental or illegal? This is what we have to decide as officials. Did White #5 shove Black #3, or did Black #3 embellish the incidental contact in hopes of getting the official to rule a team-control foul? What you see is what you see. The more games you work, the more videos you see, and the more training camps you attend will help put you in a position to properly rule on plays like this. The NFHS association wants us to clean up plays such as this.
Prior to the inbound, the Primary ruling official obtained a dependable position to properly officiate this play. After the contact was made and Black #5 went down, the official gesture to the him to get up. The official did not deem the contact by White #5 to be illegal. Therefore, he should rule a flop warning.
-The Professor