Foul on a tip/tap

[Rob1968]

Last night: A1 shoots, misses. A2 "crashes the boards" and tips/taps the ball, as he pushes B2 from behind. Lead calls the push, and quickly turns to report the foul. The ball bounces straight up from the rim, twice, and then goes through. Lead is unaware that it went through. The scorer adds 2 points to A's score.
C informs the Lead that the ball went through. Lead asks if it matters whether the push was before the tap or after.
Comments . . .

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Last night: A1 shoots, misses. A2 "crashes the boards" and tips/taps the ball, as he pushes B2 from behind. Lead calls the push, and quickly turns to report the foul. The ball bounces straight up from the rim, twice, and then goes through. Lead is unaware that it went through. The scorer adds 2 points to A's score.
C informs the Lead that the ball went through. Lead asks if it matters whether the push was before the tap or after.
Comments . . .

It matters in the case of this airborne shooter (4-1) for whom a try or a tap is all the same. Ball is dead at time of foul (6-7-4). No score.
Make sense?

[Rob1968]

To be more precise, Lead asked whether the basket should count if the tap came before the foul, or after. It seems to me, as you said, Freddy, that A2 was an airborne shooter, in either instance, and that the basket should not count.

[Adam]

The only difference it makes would be weather you'd shoot free throws if B was in the bonus.

Either way, the basket would not count.

It's either a player control foul, or it's a common foul committed prior to the start of the shot.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

To be more precise, Lead asked whether the basket should count if the tap came before the foul, or after. It seems to me, as you said, Freddy, that A2 was an airborne shooter, in either instance, and that the basket should not count.

One quibble -- If the foul was before the tap, then A2 wasn't an airborne shooter.

Either way, though, the shot doesn't count (under FED rules -- in NCAAM, the shot would count if the foul was after the tap).

[Rob1968]

Thanks. I was the C and we got it right. Whether it was a common foul or a player control foul is really important. It was not a bonus situation, and that's an important point.
I promised my two partners that I'd look into the scenario, further. Which means that I would bring it here.
I plan on using all of this in training this season, in our officials chapter.
You guys are great! Thanks, again.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

One quibble -- If the foul was before the tap, then A2 wasn't an airborne shooter. Either way, though, the shot doesn't count (under FED rules -- in NCAAM, the shot would count if the foul was after the tap).

Always an honor to be corrected by Bob. Kinda like a coach telling you that you didn't suck as bad as he thought you would.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Last night: A1 shoots, misses. A2 "crashes the boards" and tips/taps the ball, as he pushes B2 from behind. Lead calls the push, and quickly turns to report the foul. The ball bounces straight up from the rim, twice, and then goes through. Lead is unaware that it went through. The scorer adds 2 points to A's score.
C informs the Lead that the ball went through. Lead asks if it matters whether the push was before the tap or after.
Comments . . .

Why would the C do that? It seems confusing to provide information about a basket which cannot count by rule. Perhaps the C was unsure about what the L called. Yet another reason that it is best if the C and T call the pushes from behind during rebounding action and the Lead handles the contact on the original drive to the hoop. Would make more sense if the C informed the Lead that the scorer incorrectly counted the goal. That would be helpful and a worthy contribution to the play.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why would the C do that? It seems confusing to provide information about a basket which cannot count by rule. Perhaps the C was unsure about what the L called. Yet another reason that it is best if the C and T call the pushes from behind during rebounding action and the Lead handles the contact on the original drive to the hoop. Would make more sense if the C informed the Lead that the scorer incorrectly counted the goal. That would be helpful and a worthy contribution to the play.

It wasn't really confusing. I was the C, and had a whistle on the play, also. The Lead, in this game, was table side of the lane, and was very quick to take the play and report to the table, which is his nature.
(The Trail is a second year official, and had asked to work with us for the experience of working a 3-man game). I kept an eye on the ball, and checked the scoreboard, and thought it best to give basic information, to the Lead, which subtly, may help him slow down, a bit, in the future.
I have found, in situations that lend themselves to training, if I can help the officials being instructed to discover the answer(s) for themselves, it makes a more lasting impression. And so, when he thought about the situation for a moment, he asked me whether the basket should count, and I told him it should not. At that point, he then informed the table, and the scorer corrected the scoreboard.
One of our trainers was on the sideline, with a newer official, observing, and agreed with the way we handled the situation.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why would the C do that? It seems confusing to provide information about a basket which cannot count by rule. Perhaps the C was unsure about what the L called. Yet another reason that it is best if the C and T call the pushes from behind during rebounding action and the Lead handles the contact on the original drive to the hoop. Would make more sense if the C informed the Lead that the scorer incorrectly counted the goal. That would be helpful and a worthy contribution to the play.

Unless a partner comes in with a preliminary signal indicating no shot or verbally states so, I don't see an issue with the issue of simply stating that the ball went in. Many a time, you'll have a partner that's so concentrated with getting the correct number/shooter/making sure nothing extracurricular happens that they don't know if the ball goes into the basket or not. I'd just view it as extra information with which the calling official can choose to use or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

Unless a partner comes in with a preliminary signal indicating no shot or verbally states so, I don't see an issue with the issue of simply stating that the ball went in. Many a time, you'll have a partner that's so concentrated with getting the correct number/shooter/making sure nothing extracurricular happens that they don't know if the ball goes into the basket or not. I'd just view it as extra information with which the calling official can choose to use or not.

Me too, normally. In this case, however, it only matters if the C (Rob) thinks the L perhaps had called a foul on the defensive player. That seems unlikely, here, since the C also had a whistle for the same thing, but possible.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

Me too, normally. In this case, however, it only matters if the C (Rob) thinks the L perhaps had called a foul on the defensive player. That seems unlikely, here, since the C also had a whistle for the same thing, but possible.

I wasn't 100 percent sure if the statement was general or specific.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Unless a partner comes in with a preliminary signal indicating no shot or verbally states so, I don't see an issue with the issue of simply stating that the ball went in. Many a time, you'll have a partner that's so concentrated with getting the correct number/shooter/making sure nothing extracurricular happens that they don't know if the ball goes into the basket or not. I'd just view it as extra information with which the calling official can choose to use or not.

It is also possible that the non-calling official has no idea what was called. He or she just knows the ball went in. That is how we teach that mechanic around here and let the calling official use the information as needed. All everyone cares about (meaning fans or coaches) is did the ball go in. If you do not give that information and the person goes to the table and says nothing about the basket by either counting it or waving it off, you will get asked soon after by the table or the coach will make a fuss about whether is should or should not have counted. At least the calling official can end that discussion at the table before they report the foul.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

While I understand your comments, guys, if the Lead properly signaled a PC foul then the C should not be telling him that the ball went in. On the other hand the Lead may have just signaled a push, which would make it unclear as to whether this was a defensive or offensive foul.
Also reading the comments now posted by the person who was the C, I can offer something else: very poor of the Lead to just take off to the table on a double-whistle without communicating and the C MUST get involved if he has a PC foul and isn't sure what the L has. Best to do this before one person goes to the table. I give half credit to the C here for initiating the communication, but it is the type of foul and the double-whistle that needed to be discussed more so than that the ball went in. Lastly, when I posted earlier I was not aware that the C also had a whistle on the play. He did not provide that info in either of his first two posts. So I couldn't figure out why a partner would be getting involved in another official's PC foul call. Makes more sense now that I know about the double-whistle.

[MD Longhorn]

Nevada, there IS a reason he should have gotten involved, even if he didn't have a double whistle. He noted that the scorer scored the basket. If the other official had no clue that the ball went in, he also had no clue that he needed to waive it off (or correct the table). Perhaps the communication, in that case, should be, "The ball went in while you were heading to the table, and they put it on the board", but communication of some sort was needed here.