What to do in this situation?

[LRZ]

If you are referring to 10.1.5 Situation D, which is not specifically an end-of-game scenario. Regardless, the casebook play calls for a DOG warning, which stops the clock and thereby rewards A for its intentional violation. Bob's suggestions are, to me, quite practical, similar to passing on a slight touch foul when a team wants to foul intentionally.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LRZ

If you are referring to 10.1.5 Situation D, which is not specifically an end-of-game scenario. Regardless, the casebook play calls for a DOG warning, which stops the clock and thereby rewards A for its intentional violation. Bob's suggestions are, to me, quite practical, similar to passing on a slight touch foul when a team wants to foul intentionally.

He's not, there's a case play that says to ignore the violation unless it actually gets in the way of a throw in. If that's the case, it says to skip to the T even if no warning had previously been issued.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Adam

He's not, there's a case play that says to ignore the violation unless it actually gets in the way of a throw in. If that's the case, it says to skip to the T even if no warning had previously been issued.

Ok, thanks. Do you have a cite? I must be overlooking something. In any event, the case play says what Bob said.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Ok, thanks. Do you have a cite? I must be overlooking something. In any event, the case play says what Bob said.

Comment section--9.2.10A

[Nevadaref]

We get this question a couple of times each season.



9.2.10 SITUATION A:
A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction.
RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach.
COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic. (4-47-1; 10-1-5b, c; 10-3-10)

[LRZ]

Thanks. And makes sense, common sense.

[Shooter14]

Thanks guys!

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by LRZ

If you are referring to 10.1.5 Situation D, which is not specifically an end-of-game scenario. Regardless, the casebook play calls for a DOG warning, which stops the clock and thereby rewards A for its intentional violation. Bob's suggestions are, to me, quite practical, similar to passing on a slight touch foul when a team wants to foul intentionally.

I take the exact opposite approach here. If a team wants to foul intentionally at the end of a game, I'm much more inclined to call a touch foul to prevent them making a more physical foul to ensure it gets called.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I take the exact opposite approach here. If a team wants to foul intentionally at the end of a game, I'm much more inclined to call a touch foul to prevent them making a more physical foul to ensure it gets called.

That's a valid school of thought. Another is if the other team is trying to avoid the foul, don't call a foul when you wouldn't otherwise have called one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I take the exact opposite approach here. If a team wants to foul intentionally at the end of a game, I'm much more inclined to call a touch foul to prevent them making a more physical foul to ensure it gets called.

So you reward the team which is behind and trying to infringe the rules for its benefit while punishing the team that is ahead and desires to work the clock? That's unfair. An official is supposed to be fair to both teams and also ensure that a team doesn't derive an advantage not intended by the rules. Make them execute a proper foul to prevent the team with the ball from doing what it desires.
While fouling near the end of the game is an accepted strategy, so is playing keep away to run out the clock. There is a right way to foul and wrong ways to do it. Officials should not favor one team's desire over the other's in such situations.
People have discussed having a quick whistle when the offense stands there and allows the defense to foul, but we've also written about being fair to the offensive team when they are passing the ball around and attempting to avoid being fouled. Just because a team wants to foul doesn't mean that it should be given that call.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So you reward the team which is behind and trying to infringe the rules for its benefit while punishing the team that is ahead and desires to work the clock? That's unfair. An official is supposed to be fair to both teams and also ensure that a team doesn't derive an advantage not intended by the rules. Make them execute a proper foul to prevent the team with the ball from doing what it desires.
While fouling near the end of the game is an accepted strategy, so is playing keep away to run out the clock. There is a right way to foul and wrong ways to do it. Officials should not favor one team's desire over the other's in such situations.
People have discussed having a quick whistle when the offense stands there and allows the defense to foul, but we've also written about being fair to the offensive team when they are passing the ball around and attempting to avoid being fouled. Just because a team wants to foul doesn't mean that it should be given that call.

This is what I was referring to. I was in attendance to a game last year when a team was clearly trying to foul, and the best FT shooter for the other team had the ball, and had no desire to give it up. He was accepting that he was going to be fouled and wanted to be the one on the line. Well the covering official did not call the initial admittedly "weak" foul, so the defender then fouled way harder. That official then had no choice but to call an excessive contact intentional, and there was a discussion about upgrading to a flagrant foul. Now I don't mean to defend the actions of the player, clearly that temper tantrum was uncalled for, but I think this situation could've been easily avoided by calling the initial foul, even if it was something that might have been passed on earlier in the game.

Passing the ball around to avoid a foul? Totally different.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

This is what I was referring to. I was in attendance to a game last year when a team was clearly trying to foul, and the best FT shooter for the other team had the ball, and had no desire to give it up. He was accepting that he was going to be fouled and wanted to be the one on the line. Well the covering official did not call the initial admittedly "weak" foul, so the defender then fouled way harder. That official then had no choice but to call an excessive contact intentional, and there was a discussion about upgrading to a flagrant foul. Now I don't mean to defend the actions of the player, clearly that temper tantrum was uncalled for, but I think this situation could've been easily avoided by calling the initial foul, even if it was something that might have been passed on earlier in the game.

Passing the ball around to avoid a foul? Totally different.

That defender should have simply placed both hands on the offensive player with the ball and kept them there. Sounds as if this player was not taught how to properly foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sounds as if this player was not taught how to properly foul.

Agree. Players aren't born already knowing how to intentionally unintentionally foul opponents in late game situations. Coaches, especially middle school, and subvarsity coaches, have to teach this skill.

[Mr.C]

At lower ages they are too busy teaching how to apply full court pressure. This way they don't have to teach anything else----including fouling appropriately in certain situations.

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by frezer11

This is what I was referring to. I was in attendance to a game last year when a team was clearly trying to foul, and the best FT shooter for the other team had the ball, and had no desire to give it up. He was accepting that he was going to be fouled and wanted to be the one on the line. Well the covering official did not call the initial admittedly "weak" foul, so the defender then fouled way harder. That official then had no choice but to call an excessive contact intentional, and there was a discussion about upgrading to a flagrant foul. Now I don't mean to defend the actions of the player, clearly that temper tantrum was uncalled for, but I think this situation could've been easily avoided by calling the initial foul, even if it was something that might have been passed on earlier in the game.

Passing the ball around to avoid a foul? Totally different.

If the defender is able to foul the offensive player as hard as he wants to, I'm all for calling a "weak" foul rather than make the defender foul hard enough to leave a mark.

If I am a player on offense and the other team is trying to foul me, I don't want them to have to foul me hard. If I am playing on defense and trying to foul someone, I would prefer to not foul hard.

Other than passing a few more ticks on the clock, I don't see how the game is improved by passing on weak fouls that are meant to stop the clock and both teams want.