Foul by disqualified player

Raymond

tjones1 wrote
From the 2005-2006 Interps

SITUATION 12: Team B has just scored to go up by three points with time running out in the fourth quarter. Player A1 inbounds the ball to A2 close to the sideline of Team B's bench. A2 releases a three-point try just prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot. RULING: B7 shall be charged with two technical fouls and ejected. One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct. Any member of Team A may shoot the four free throws for the technical fouls. The results of these free throws will determine if the game is over or going into overtime. COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act. (10-4-1; 10-4-2)

Personally, I would rule the second Technical to be Flagrant.

CoachP

BadNewsRef wrote
Personally, I would rule the second Technical to be Flagrant.

Why?

jdmara

BadNewsRef wrote
Personally, I would rule the second Technical to be Flagrant.

CoachP wrote
Why?

Because in the OP, A1 tackled B1!

-Josh

CoachP

jdmara wrote
Because in the OP, A1 tackled B1!

-Josh

Oh..the OP yeah.

I read into it that BadNews was refering to the 2005 interp as that is what he quoted...my bad.

jdmara

CoachP wrote
Oh..the OP yeah.

I read into it that BadNews was refering to the 2005 interp as that is what he quoted...my bad.

I guess I need to read better myself, he may be referring to the quoted area. Nevermind 😉

-Josh

Adam

If it's a last second situation, like the case play, go with two Ts (one flagrant). If it's not, go with one flagrant T. Each T you assess gets assessed indirectly to the HC for good measure.

bob jenkins

Snaqwells wrote
If it's a last second situation, like the case play, go with two Ts (one flagrant). If it's not, go with one flagrant T. Each T you assess gets assessed indirectly to the HC for good measure.

Heck, you could also assess a direct T to the coach for "allowing a DQ'd player to participate" (or whatever the specific wording is).

That way, the coach could accompany the player to the locker room. 😉

tjones1

Snaqwells wrote
If it's a last second situation, like the case play, go with two Ts (one flagrant). If it's not, go with one flagrant T. Each T you assess gets assessed indirectly to the HC for good measure.

I think you have to at least go with two Ts. One for entering the court without permission and the other for the unsporting action (which would be flagrant).

You could certainly make an argument for 10-5-3, as Bob said.

just another ref

If you go with two Ts, what's the difference if one is flagrant or not?

Adam

tjones1 wrote
I think you have to at least go with two Ts. One for entering the court without permission and the other for the unsporting action (which would be flagrant).

You could certainly make an argument for 10-5-3, as Bob said.

My understanding is that with one act, they generally want us to call one foul. The case play addresses a very specific situation where calling one foul would allow the offending team to gain an advantage by that foul; thus they give us leeway to call 2. I don't see that here, so I think in most situations a single flagrant would be enough.

Adam

just another ref wrote
If you go with two Ts, what's the difference if one is flagrant or not?

Maybe nothing. Maybe state sanctions for fighting. The point is, I think, that the tackle needs to be labeled flagrant simply because it is a flagrant foul.

Adam

It just dawned on me that the tackle would be a flagrant personal rather than a flagrant technical.

bob jenkins

tjones1 wrote
I think you have to at least go with two Ts. One for entering the court without permission and the other for the unsporting action (which would be flagrant).

If we're discussing the OP ("B6 tackles A1"), then I agree. If we're discussing the case play (B6 blocks the shot), then I don't think it qualifies as flagrant.

You could certainly make an argument for 10-5-3, as Bob said.

I think you need to check your humor plug-in.

The only way I'd issue a direct to the coach on this is if s/he said "go in and block that shot."

[deleted]

Snaqwells wrote
It just dawned on me that the tackle would be a flagrant personal rather than a flagrant technical.

It can't be a flagrant personal foul, since A1 was not in the game at the time.

chartrusepengui

Snaqwells wrote
My understanding is that with one act, they generally want us to call one foul. The case play addresses a very specific situation where calling one foul would allow the offending team to gain an advantage by that foul; thus they give us leeway to call 2. I don't see that here, so I think in most situations a single flagrant would be enough.

I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

Adam

Ref Ump Welsch wrote
It can't be a flagrant personal foul, since A1 was not in the game at the time.

Based on which rule? The ball is live.

Adam

chartrusepengui wrote
I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

Any bench player knows he's not supposed to do this, being disqualified really doesn't make it any more true. From that perspective, I don't see how that matters, honestly.

tjones1

bob jenkins wrote
If we're discussing the OP ("B6 tackles A1"), then I agree. If we're discussing the case play (B6 blocks the shot), then I don't think it qualifies as flagrant.

I was and I agree that the case play (B6 blocks the shot) isn't flagrant.

bob jenkins wrote
I think you need to check your humor plug-in.

The only way I'd issue a direct to the coach on this is if s/he said "go in and block that shot."

Ok, you caught me. 😀

chartrusepengui wrote
I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the player was DQ'd or not - I'm calling two Ts.

Raymond

jdmara wrote
I guess I need to read better myself, he may be referring to the quoted area. Nevermind 😉

-Josh

I'm referring to the OP. I didn't even notice that the case play said A1 blocked the shot.

chartrusepengui

Snaqwells wrote
Any bench player knows he's not supposed to do this, being disqualified really doesn't make it any more true. From that perspective, I don't see how that matters, honestly.

Any bench player should know this, BUT, this idiot already did something to get DQ'd. He should receive both penalties allowed by rule. Period. He was responsible for two infractions. It was not one act. Going on the court is a seperate act. Tackling is another. If being disqualified doesn't make it any more true - it certainly doesn't make it any less true and certainly should not be an excuse NOT to enforce the rules that say he should get 2 technicals. We are not out there to give idiots like that a break. We are not deciding an outcome - that responsibility falls on his shoulders alone.