Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
Page 54 of my most recent Referee Magazine.
A23 drives the lane and is fouled by B24 while attempting a layup. The ball enters the basket and A23 then collides with B55 who is in a legal guarding position (a) just before, or (b) just after returning to the floor.
Ruling: False double foul. Penalize both fouls in both cases.
|
In (a), the foul by A23 is a player control foul. You cancel the basket(which
ISN'T mentioned in the ruling) and administer both fouls as a false double foul. A23 gets 2 FT's with no one on the lane and team B then gets the ball for a throw-in on the end-line after the second FT. If the second FT was good, team B gets to run the endline on their throw-in. See case book play 4.19.9SitA--it's almost similar.
In (b), the contact by A23 came after the basket was made and the ball was dead. Therefore, because A23 was no longer an airbiorne shooter, that contact should have been ignored unless it was deemed intentional or flagrant(which it isn't, from the description). See rule 4-19-1NOTE. Iow, you count the basket by A23 and give A23 one FT for the foul by B55, with the players lined up. No foul on A55.
Referee magazine gave an incomplete answer in case (a) and was wrong in case (b). It's certainly not the first time they've done that and probably not the last.
EDIT: I see Nevada cited the same case play for (a). The OP intimated imo that the ball had gone through before the contact by A23 in case (b). I agree that the play is not well written up by Referee.