The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:19pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
One foul or two?

Last half-minute of overtime, A up three points, and in possession. I'm the T.

A-1 is holding the ball near the division line. B-2 runs toward him and tries to foul, blocking him. (The play on the ball was minimal, but enough to go common.) The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down. I immediately opted for the intentional foul.

Were there no shove, I would've stuck with a common foul. However, it could be argued to go with a common and a technical, for the dead ball contact.

Thoughts?
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
Last half-minute of overtime, A up three points, and in possession. I'm the T.

A-1 is holding the ball near the division line. B-2 runs toward him and tries to foul, blocking him. (The play on the ball was minimal, but enough to go common.) The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down. I immediately opted for the intentional foul.

Were there no shove, I would've stuck with a common foul. However, it could be argued to go with a common and a technical, for the dead ball contact.

Thoughts?
From your description, I don't see not reporting both fouls. If you have enough plausibility to say the whistle was for the intentional foul, you can do that but when it's after the whistle, I don't see where you have the choice.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:38pm
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
From your description, I don't see not reporting both fouls. If you have enough plausibility to say the whistle was for the intentional foul, you can do that but when it's after the whistle, I don't see where you have the choice.
I'm not sure you understood the question. He's debating common AND an intentional or common AND a tech. At least I hope this is the case. Calling a foul and then deciding not to because of an intentional foul after is poor officiating.

I'd have gone common and then a technical here. This kind of play after a foul call is a two and you're outa here. Depending on the shove I may just get rid of the player then and there, but it would have to be pretty bad.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:44pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad View Post
I'm not sure you understood the question. He's debating common AND an intentional or common AND a tech. At least I hope this is the case.
No. Here, it's intentional or common and technical.
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:45pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Common foul and intentional technical foul for the dead ball contact.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:47pm
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
No. Here, it's intentional or common and technical.
Oh. Weird. What's the reasoning behind discounting the initial foul?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:51pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad View Post
I'm not sure you understood the question. He's debating common AND an intentional or common AND a tech. At least I hope this is the case. Calling a foul and then deciding not to because of an intentional foul after is poor officiating.

I'd have gone common and then a technical here. This kind of play after a foul call is a two and you're outa here. Depending on the shove I may just get rid of the player then and there, but it would have to be pretty bad.
How could he have a common and an intentional foul on the same player?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:54pm
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
How could he have a common and an intentional foul on the same player?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
Eh. I totally read the play wrong. Glanced at it at work and thought one player fouled and the other pushed.

My bad, East. Hah.

Despite misreading the play, I'd still go with a common foul and then a tech.

Last edited by Dad; Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58pm.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.
I can see coaches around here blowing a gasket over this call. Nonetheless, this is the correct call.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:25pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey View Post
No. Here, it's intentional or common and technical.

If it happens quickly enough, I may just consider it once action and call it intentional. But if it's clearly 2 separate actions, I'd call a common followed by a technical.

On a take foul, my whistle is pretty instantaneous, so....
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.
Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:31pm
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.
"The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down."

If this is how the play went down what would you call?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 02:33pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad View Post
"The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down."

If this is how the play went down what would you call?
Not enough information. My whistle isn't that long and I'm hitting it the second contact happens in a take foul situation.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 22, 2016, 03:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.
Agree -- this is being radically shaped by how people are picturing the play. My initial picture was a foul followed by a push because the player was still trying to get the ref to call the foul. That to me is just a common foul, followed by a nothing.

But if it's a more violent push or more clearly after play is stopped, the whole scenario changes radically and common foul plus tech makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I'm hard pressed to see an intentional foul here with a common foul occurring first.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Foul In the Post: One Continuous Action or Technical Foul? APG Basketball 10 Sat Feb 02, 2013 08:24pm
Common Shooting Foul Followed by a Technical Foul tophat67 Basketball 9 Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:57am
Foul where distance gained prior to foul wwcfoa43 Football 15 Sun Feb 20, 2011 06:04pm
Can you just call a team foul if you are not sure who the foul is on? Diebler biggravy Basketball 18 Sun Dec 13, 2009 07:20pm
Anger over referee's foul calls triggers a bigger foul after game BktBallRef Basketball 10 Mon Mar 06, 2006 02:36am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1