Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Rsi,
I appreciate the trying to figure out what to do part of this, but the player Rondo landed on did not appear to be in LGP. If you called that, then you might have to explain to someone why that was your decision. At least with a technical foul you have basis for such a rule as the play by rule is dead and any contact would be a T. But this would IMO not be just about the contact, it is about the act that Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent. Stick with the obvious and call a T here. Calling a PC foul would not only be questionable, but not "technically" correct with how other factors are not present at that moment to make this a simply PC foul. Do not go troubling trouble.
|
This is so poor that I must question whether you know the rule any better than rsl.
1. LGP has nothing to do with the play. Why do you even mention it? A player with the ball or an airborne shooter can certainly commit a player control foul against an opponent who does not have LGP. There is a nice depiction in the Simplified & Illustrated book of a player charging into a defender who is facing the away from him. Take a look at it.
2. Yes, the ball is dead as it has passed through the basket, but writing "any contact would be a T" is wrong as this contact was created by an airborne shooter and rule 4-19-1 specifically tells us that such contact is a personal foul. Furthermore, any contact which is not intentional or flagrant or involving an airborne shooter during a dead ball is to be ignored as stated in the note to that same rule. Did you totally forget about this?
3. Lastly, you advise to "Stick with the obvious and call a T here." Too bad, as such poor advice is not supported by the NFHS rules. You are clearly not saying to charge a T for grasping the ring as you note "Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent," so you are attempting to penalize his behavior. However, what was that behavior? Did he taunting him with words or by pointing at him? Nope, it was the act of landing himself on top of his opponent. That is a contact action. So BY RULE you cannot charge him with a T for unsporting behavior as that is defined as a NONcontact foul in 4-19-14.
4. Therefore, the proper ruling cannot be a technical foul for the behavior of the player in this particular case, but one could be charged for grasping the ring. Nor in my opinion should a player control foul be called, but that is at least a judgment call about the contact and not simply wrong by rule. What I see in this video is an airborne shooter deliberately creating unacceptable contact with an opponent during a dead ball. According to the NFHS rules that needs to be penalized with an intentional personal foul. The goal with count as the foul is not a common foul and thus cannot qualify as a player control foul. The offended player will attempt two FTs at the other end and then his team will have a designated-spot throw-in on the end line nearest to where the foul occurred.
This was an unusual play involving an airborne shooter misbehaving by creating contact. I commend rsl for inquiring about the proper ruling. You shouldn't have dismissed his querry so easily with your "keep it simple" advice, which in this case amounts to "don't really think about it and just get it wrong, very few people will actually know." That's a sad way to officiate.
