![]() |
Quote:
No way I am calling a foul on B3. B2 should complain to B3 about this one. Peace |
Quote:
|
Thank you for your responses to the original question. Based largely on insights shared on this forum, here's what was taught at our local association regarding the situations asked about. Feedback requested if any errors identified.
Chain Reaction Fouls Illustration |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What is your call? I told the OP i'd have to see it and it would have to be really bad..and gave a very extreme example as sniper pointed out, more as a joke because i doubt id ever see it. I used throwing the ball as an example because we've talked about using the ball to foul or throw it off player's face etc. Unsportsmanlike. In my play above i'm not going to let B3 off the hook. I think it is a non basketball, unsportsmanlike…flagrant etc. Will it ever happen? hopefully, not. But if a player's intent is clear, non basketball..unsportsmanlike etc., i'm going to penalize him. The fact that he uses one of his own players rather than the ball, his own body or a chair for that matter, doesn't change his intent. There is rules support to deal with B3. Generic unsportsmanlike etc but it is there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd like to know what rules basis you have for referencing the play in this thread or your example as "unsportsmanlike." What exactly would you call here? |
Quote:
I won't speak to the OP because as I said, id have to see it. I said unsporting is always an option. I should have said it is always a consideration. It has to be bad and deliberate to call it that. In my play, which is non basketball, deliberate etc I would call a Flagrant T and toss him. If we say it can't be a flagrant personal because there was no contact between B3 and A1 (which I agree with) then it becomes a Flagrant T. We are calling it by definition "non contact" and we decided it was unacceptable behavior. |
Quote:
Throwing the ball off of someone's face is irrelevant to the OP. |
Quote:
In the OP there was no physical contact between the bad actor and the victim player. So by definition we have "non contact" situation. If he deliberately, intentionally and in an unacceptable way shoves his teammate into A1 it is the same type of play. He's just using a teammate and not the ball. |
Quote:
But hey, call a T and then go around defending that silly ruling. Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now there is no support for you to give a T to a player that contacts a teammate that contacts and opponent. You either call the foul on that player (which is proper), but you cannot call a T for that unless you have a case play or some interpretation to take it that far. Now I showed rules support for my comments, where is your rules support? Peace |
Quote:
"Also, the defense has the right to stand NEXT to the thrower as well. That rule kind of addresses that as well. It is the only time they have a right to a specific space on the floor if they did not get there first." Your comments clearly suggested another rule so Bob asked for a reference. I dont think he has received it yet. I guess he has it now. As for my play, if a player shoves a teammate into an opponent with intent to harm or intent to do something with attitude when he should know harm is likely to come (airborne player), that is a flagrant act. Just as if he fired ball in his face. He, himself, is not contacting the other team's player so it is a "noncontact act" by defintion. It is clearly, however, unacceptable behavior...unsportsmanlike. 4-19-4. If it is flagrant why would we let the player off the hook just because he himself didnt touch the opponent? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35pm. |