Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 996955)

Actually, the thread itself was titled 7-6 and the actual question was about Article 5. The same one you cited above. Your response:

"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?

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 996955)

Actually, the thread itself was titled 7-6 and the actual question was about Article 5. The same one you cited above. Your response:

"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?

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 996959)

So what about following the rule book and calling a foul on B2 (in case I got the player designation wrong... the one that actually contacting the shooter), as well as a tech on B3 (the one that pushed his teammate into the shooter)?

To be clear, I'm not saying this is the right thing, just asking if this is a viable solution.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 996967)

Bryan, first let me be clear, a teammate can shove his own player into an opponent for a number of reasons that dont amount to unsportsmanlike, flagrant, intentional etc. B2 is in the wrong place, i shove him to get him where the hell he is supposed to be. B2 is in the way and B3 is trying to get to a position to block a shot etc. These things happen in basketball. Not ill intent etc. Cant be a personal against the player who shoves him for reasons others have stated. I agree foul is on B2.

If I see a player who's caused trouble all night, etc., i see him shove his own player into another with intent to deliver some sort of blow, I know there is very bad intent, im only going to call the flagrant T. If i'm certain he's acting in flagrant manner im going to penalize him. I wouldnt penalize B2 if i was already tossing B3 etc.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 996971)

I would think you'd have a shooting foul for sure, and possibly a tech or flagrant against B3 to go with it.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 996975)

I know it would be a cluster but letting B3 off the hook for a flagrant act because he didnt make actual contact with the opponent cant be right. On the street it is still battery. I'm not saying B3 goes to jail but there has to be a penalty to him, imo.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 996976)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'll ask again.. Can you not have both a shooting foul and tech or flagrant?



Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by kelvinsmerli (Post 997003)

A lot of knowledge gained here. Thanks. Foul on B2. Hard shove by B3 Unsporting T.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 997034)

Honestly, this will be a once-in-a-career call if you call a T on B3 here. The play in the OP could happen several times, however, and the right call will just be the foul on B2. If the T on B3 is warranted, it will be glaringly obvious and will practically call itself.

Originally Posted by kelvinsmerli (Post 997003)

A lot of knowledge gained here. Thanks. Foul on B2. Hard shove by B3 Unsporting T.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 997034)

Honestly, this will be a once-in-a-career call if you call a T on B3 here. The play in the OP could happen several times, however, and the right call will just be the foul on B2. If the T on B3 is warranted, it will be glaringly obvious and will practically call itself.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 997051)

^^^^
As referees*, we often discuss extreme scenarios to test our understanding of rules and what they really mean. Sometimes those discussions can aid in a broad understanding of how rules fit together. But it is critical to remember that it is an extremely unlikely scenario being discussed -- not a situation to look for but one that it may be helpful to have pondered when that (or another) really bizarre situation occurs and we are thinking what the @#$# just happened and what now?!? but we don't want to be the ref looking for a situation to show we have a clever solution.

Originally Posted by kelvinsmerli (Post 997003)

A lot of knowledge gained here. Thanks. Foul on B2. Hard shove by B3 Unsporting T.