3 Types of Violations

Rich1

In the back of the rule book (page 82) there is a list of "Basketball Rules Fundamentals", which unfortunately are unknown to a lot of refs. In this section, #8 states "there are three types of violations and each has its own penalty."

Anyone know what these 3 types are?

Nevadaref

Rich1 wrote
In the back of the rule book (page 82) there is a list of "Basketball Rules Fundamentals", which unfortunately are unknown to a lot of refs. In this section, #8 states "there are three types of violations and each has its own penalty."

Anyone know what these 3 types are?

Excellent question!
I know that floor violations and basket violations are two of them.
I cannot recall what was the third classification. Perhaps dribbling or time. Someone more veteran than I will remember this old classification system.

Edit: might have been jump ball violations, which were far more important prior to the AP arrow.

Mike Goodwin

Rich1 wrote
In the back of the rule book (page 82) there is a list of "Basketball Rules Fundamentals", which unfortunately are unknown to a lot of refs. In this section, #8 states "there are three types of violations and each has its own penalty."

Anyone know what these 3 types are?

Rule 4-46: VIOLATION

A violation is one of three types of rule infractions which are listed and the penalty outlined in 9-1 through 13. Following are the types of violations:

ART. 1... Type 1: Floor violations including basket interference by a teammate of the player attempting a field goal or free throw or goaltending a field goal and other violations, which are not connected with a free throw or try or tap for field goal.

ART. 2... Type 2: Basket interference or goaltending by a player at the opponent’s basket.

ART. 3... Type 3: Free-throw violations other than those involving basket interference or goaltending.

BillyMac

Mike Goodwin wrote
Rule 4-46: VIOLATION A violation is one of three types of rule infractions which are listed and the penalty outlined in 9-1 through 13. Following are the types of violations ...

What a weird classification system.

Melvil Dewey and Carl Linnaeus would not be pleased.

crosscountry55

It strikes me that the three types of violations are classified on the basis of how we dispose them:

1. Opponent gets a throw-in.
2. Opponent is awarded points.
3. Opponent either gets a substitute free throw or has their free-throw cancelled.

Of course there are nuances, but that’s the basic framework.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nevadaref

crosscountry55 wrote
It strikes me that the three types of violations are classified on the basis of how we dispose them:

1. Opponent gets a throw-in.
2. Opponent is awarded points.
3. Opponent either gets a substitute free throw or has their free-throw cancelled.

Of course there are nuances, but that’s the basic framework.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice! I never thought of it that way.

I have always found the classification of violations into three types as useless at best and confusing at worst.

This was because I didn’t understand how several violations fit into the system. For example, jump ball violations, throw-in violations, or timing violations (3-seconds, ten seconds in the backcourt, etc.) would all be covered under article 1.

I’m going to reflect upon this a bit as it seems that teaching the penalties for types 2 & 3 would be useful. That way everything else is type 1 and results in a throw-in.

Rich1

I had heard them stated as "timing" violations which would be 5 seconds, 10 seconds, close guard, etc; "ball handling" violations such as traveling, double-dribble, etc; and "other" violations which would be goal-tending or basket interference.

I don't like these because "other" just doesn't cut it for me and these don't include defensive violations. I am also not satisfied with what is in Rule 4-46 but do accept that it is the rule - it seems to me we could classify the violations into better categories and basket interference is in there twice.

Maybe we need 5 types of violations.

Rich1

BillyMac wrote
What a weird classification system.

Melvil Dewey and Carl Linnaeus would not be pleased.

Nice references. There can't be 5 people on this site that know off the top of their head who these two guys are. You were either a librarian or a biologist in a past life.

FlasherZ

Rich1 wrote
Nice references. There can't be 5 people on this site that know off the top of their head who these two guys are. You were either a librarian or a biologist in a past life.

There are probably more than 5, I'd hope - they taught us this in grade school... if not, I'm in rare company then.

BillyMac

Nevadaref wrote
I have always found the classification of violations into three types as useless at best and confusing at worst.

Maybe it was translated poorly from the ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek used by James Naismith.

Rich1

FlasherZ wrote
There are probably more than 5, I'd hope - they taught us this in grade school... if not, I'm in rare company then.

Dewey - Yes, we all used the library at some point.

Linnaeus - Lesser known evolutionist whose theories were largely disproven by Darwin so why would this even come up in elementary school.

BillyMac

Rich1 wrote
There can't be 5 people on this site that know off the top of their head who these two guys are.

FlasherZ wrote
There are probably more than 5 ... they taught us this in grade schoo l...

Most people couldn't care a Rattus norvegicus's ass who Carl Linnaeus was.

Wasn't Dewey one of the triplet nephews of Donald Duck?

BillyMac

Rich1 wrote
Linnaeus ... why would this even come up in elementary school.

Can't remember for me as a student, but as a teacher, I taught binomial nomenclature in seventh grade life science.

Students came into my lesson believing that "scientific" names were stupid, and that "common" names were good enough.

Students left my lesson believing the opposite.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
Students came into my lesson believing that "scientific" names were stupid, and that "common" names were good enough. Students left my lesson believing the opposite.

One of my best lessons.

There are over one-hundred "common" names for one bird, the northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) including yellowhammer, pigeon woodpecker, and golden winged woodpecker.

The cougar (Puma concolor), a single animal, has many "common" names, including puma, mountain lion, catamount, and panther.

And true "panthers" can be leopards (Panthera pardus) or jaguars (Panthera onca).

Cougars are not true "panthers"

Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are also true "panthers".

And the Florida panther isn't a real "panther", it's a cougar (Puma concolor).

Confused? That's the point.

Stick to the Latin scientific names and you won't be.

Catfish, crayfish, silverfish, jellyfish, starfish.

Only one is a fish (and it isn't a member of the cat (Felidae) family).

One doesn't even live in the water.

ilyazhito

BillyMac wrote
What a weird classification system.

Melvil Dewey and Carl Linnaeus would not be pleased.

Agreed. Neither of them would classify 13 classes into 3 categories. There always is an odd violation out. Add in the shot clock violation, and you have 14.

I get that NFHS classes violations by consequence: possession, points, or free throws. However, that classification doesn't help to determine what the nature of the infraction was. Basket interference by the offense is class 2 according to NFHS, but its practical impact is no different than that of traveling (class 1).

I would judge violations by their nature: Free throw violations (outside marked spaces entering before the ball hits the ring, inside the marked spaces entering before the release, etc.), time violations (3 second, 5 second, 10 second, shot clock), ball violations (illegal dribble, traveling, carrying, out of bounds, kicking or striking the ball with a fist), scoring violations (goaltending and basket interference), and procedural violations (swinging the elbows, backcourt, throw-in violations, leaving the court for an unauthorized reason).

FlasherZ

Rich1 wrote
Linnaeus - Lesser known evolutionist whose theories were largely disproven by Darwin so why would this even come up in elementary school.

*shrug* binomial nomenclature was part of our science curriculum in junior high...

BillyMac

FlasherZ wrote
...binomial nomenclature was part of our science curriculum in junior high ...

BillyMac

FlasherZ wrote
... binomial nomenclature was part of our science curriculum in junior high ...

Did you learn this: King Phillip Came Over From Germany Saturday?

Rich1

BillyMac wrote
Did you learn this: King Phillip Came Over From Germany Saturday?

You left off DOMAIN - it is now above Kingdom in the classification. It includes the Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya (plants & animals). I guess now we should change it to Did King Phillip Came Over From Germany Saturday?

crosscountry55

Do Kings Play Chess On Fridays, Generally Speaking?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk