Foul question?

[Bball Girl]

When two players are going for the ball and both take a dive...what determines who gets the foul?

[YCN]

Neither if both are simply going for a loose ball.

[brolewis]

I looked through the NCAA rulebook and there was nothing specific to a loose ball. In college, there should be no penalty, unless one of the players commits an infraction other than just diving for the ball.

[Gator]

When two players are going for the ball and both take a dive...what determines who gets the foul?

18) The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and does not constitute a foul. Contact, which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive moves, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe. Contact which does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

From the Official's forum most misunderstood rules list

[Bball Girl]

Thanks...I've seen today and some other games, situations where both players were going for the ball, both went down and a foul was called....yet in the replay I couldn't see where one "fouled" more than the other.

[brolewis]

Thanks...I've seen today and some other games, situations where both players were going for the ball, both went down and a foul was called....yet in the replay I couldn't see where one "fouled" more than the other.
I've seen that happen in a number of games and I find it rather frustrating. To me, this is simply a lack of understanding of the rules on the part of the ref. However, this leads me to a soapbox that I probably shouldn't stand on, so I'll leave it at that ;)

[BearLady]

18) The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and does not constitute a foul. Contact, which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive moves, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe. Contact which does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

From the Official's forum most misunderstood rules list


Charles Gonzales, study this rule diligently.

[brolewis]

Charles Gonzales, study this rule diligently.
BearLady, is there a joke I'm missing or something?

[BearLady]

.2 seconds, Baylor vs Tennessee, NCAA tourney, 2004.

He made 'The Call'. And, no, it's no joke.

[brolewis]

Man, I'm impressed you remember the refs name. I remember the call, no doubt. I, too, was watching in agony, but didn't ever catch the refs name.

[BBallFanatic]

I remember, too, BearLady. That was like a bad, bad dream.

[YCN]

18) The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and does not constitute a foul. Contact, which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive moves, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe. Contact which does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

From the Official's forum most misunderstood rules list
I remember that from wandering the NCAA website a few times looking for rules and interpretations, and the rule is simply common sense. Why it is that so many officials are quick to blow a whistle when one player comes out on the short end of a loose ball scrum is something I've never understood. But it happens on a regular basis.

[Gator]

Thanks...I've seen today and some other games, situations where both players were going for the ball, both went down and a foul was called....yet in the replay I couldn't see where one "fouled" more than the other.
My understanding: if both go for the loose ball and one player "holds" the other or makes any contact which inhibits the other player from getting the ball (ie - disadvantages the other player) it is a foul. If the only thing the player is doing is trying to get the ball for herself and contact occurs because both are doing the same thing - no foul.

The Tower Principal: "It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage."

One of the reason I hesitate as a spectator to "call" a foul or a no foul is that so many things can affect what we see - the angle, etc. Frankly, I am watching the "action" whereas the officials are looking at specific things, dividing the action into 3 areas of focus, one for each official. I hear terms like "home cooking" and frankly, don't believe it. Do officials make mistakes? Sure! And it is not a cut and dried science - some things they don't call...

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred."

"As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules."

I'm going to have to look for the souse of the above quotes - they are from a document titled: "The Tower Philosophy" which starts out by saying:
"The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the rules committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn."

It is one of the things I've copied to my "rules" folder as I TRY to understand more. And frankly, the more I understand, the more I do NOT envy the officials who must make split second decisions in a sometimes highly emotional atmosphere - decision based not only on rules but principals.

[brolewis]

I remember that from wandering the NCAA website a few times looking for rules and interpretations, and the rule is simply common sense. Why it is that so many officials are quick to blow a whistle when one player comes out on the short end of a loose ball scrum is something I've never understood. But it happens on a regular basis.
I think there is a natural response to blow a whistle when players collide and it seems like there should be a foul since two (or more) players did collide. However, what seems right isn't always what is actually right. :)