Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Nevada, consider this example.
30 seconds left, the ball goes out of bounds. Just after the official gives the ball to the thrower, B1 steps out of bounds to guard the thrower more closely. The benefit here is that he has given his defense time to set up, the clock is not unduly stopped. You gonna call this T if they haven't had a delay warning yet?
Or, following a timeout late in the game, B1 steps out just after A1 gets the ball for the throwin. B now knows has a better idea how to defend and gets an extra few seconds to set up; getting coached while the official reports the warning to the table. You gonna call this a T without a prior DOG warning?
|
From the above NFHS interp:
"If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior."
It's definitely a consideration. One used to see this all the time in the NBA, but it seems to have disappeared. I wonder what they did to address this problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
You can't tell me, though, that you make this call whenever a shooter gets fouled from behind; on a layup or not.
|
If the offensive player has a clear path to the basket and is pushed or fouled from behind, you can bet that I'm calling it intentional whether he is yet in the act of shooting or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
The case play you mention isn't relevant to my play. I was aware of that case play and the philosophy behind it, that's why I didn't mention going out of bounds for an unauthorized reason. Neither is the case play that authorizes us to ignore the DOG when the defense is only doing it to stop the clock when there is less than 5 seconds left in the game.
|
It is relevant because it instructs us to consider an unsporting technical foul for intentional noncontact violations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
BTW, I've got one more.
2 on 1 fast break and the defender purposefully sticks his foot out to stop a pass he can't otherwise defend. Kicking, ball OOB for A, yet B1 just stopped a fast break and now A has to play 5 on 5 again. Advantage B.
|
In order to be a violation a kick has to be intentional any time that it is done. Therefore, since there is no such thing as an unintentional kicking violation, I don't believe that this is a quality example.
Furthermore, this is not something which can be diagrammed in a huddle and then readily executed on the court, and therefore would be difficult to consider unsporting. The kid just has to use his athletic ability the best that he can to make a play and stop the situation. He still has to make contact with the ball. It's not as if merely attempting to kick the ball is a violation that a player could deviously try to use to stop a fast break.
Team A bears some responsibility to execute a decent 2 on 1 break.
However, if B1 were to purposely swing his arms and elbows about such that it were reasonable to believe that it was unsafe for the two attacking opponents to enter the FT lane in an attempt to score, then in that particular situation merely calling a violation would indeed allow Team B to benefit from a grossly unfair tactic. Therefore the NFHS ruling should be invoked and this should be deemed an unsporting technical foul.
See how vastly different those two situations are?