Chain Reaction Foul #2

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I think your really trying to stretch to get to serve T here lately.

Yes he has been stretching a lot of plays lately.

No way I am calling a foul on B3. B2 should complain to B3 about this one.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes he has been stretching a lot of plays lately.

No way I am calling a foul on B3. B2 should complain to B3 about this one.

Peace

He has no rules support, either, but it's better to be "right."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

He has no rules support, either, but it's better to be "right."

Let me ask you this Rich, Suppose A1 is leaving ground on layup, in air. B3, total jerk, intentionally shoves B2, not a little push, not in any way an accident. Deliberately to take out A1. You know it and everyone in the gym knows it. B2 hits airborne A1 hard, takes his legs out etc. A1 goes to floor, hard.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Let me ask you this Rich, Suppose A1 is leaving ground on layup, in air. B3, total jerk, intentionally shoves B2, not a little push, not in any way an accident. Deliberately to take out A1. You know it and everyone in the gym knows it. B2 hits airborne A1 hard, takes his legs out etc. A1 goes to floor, hard.

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.

I'm talking about calling a personal foul here. I'm also not considering the absurd example, which might warrant an "absurd" response.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm talking about calling a personal foul here. I'm also not considering the absurd example, which might warrant an "absurd" response.

Fair enough…thx

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Let me ask you this Rich, Suppose A1 is leaving ground on layup, in air. B3, total jerk, intentionally shoves B2, not a little push, not in any way an accident. Deliberately to take out A1. You know it and everyone in the gym knows it. B2 hits airborne A1 hard, takes his legs out etc. A1 goes to floor, hard.

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.

You have repeatedly used the term "unsportsmanlike."

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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

You have repeatedly used the term "unsportsmanlike."

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?

If A1 has the ball for the throw in and throws the ball off of B1s face and you deem it unsporting as opposed to accidental, (See 10.4.6 sit B) what are you going to call and rule to cite?

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BigCat

If A1 has the ball for the throw in and throws the ball off of B1s face and you deem it unsporting as opposed to accidental, (See 10.4.6 sit B) what are you going to call and rule to cite?

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.

I was just curious as to your line of thinking in relating this to the OP since you kept say unsportsmanlike, which is a football term and since unsporting fouls under NFHS rules clearly refer to non contact situations.


Throwing the ball off of someone's face is irrelevant to the OP.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I was just curious as to your line of thinking in relating this to the OP since you kept say unsportsmanlike, which is a football term and since unsporting fouls under NFHS rules clearly refer to non contact situations.


Throwing the ball off of someone's face is irrelevant to the OP.

Unsporting is used in basketball rules and actually in the case play cited above. I cited that play simply because it is an example of somebody doing something unsporting, non basketball, intentional etc that doesn't involve actual physical contact between the bad actor player and the victim player. No player contact but unacceptable so needs to be called. Technical.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

He has no rules support, either, but it's better to be "right."

Yep. But I cannot talk about that as I seem to get into a lot of trouble. I guess there is a little "patch" on my arm that kind of tells me I must know what I am doing ultimately.

But hey, call a T and then go around defending that silly ruling.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But hey, call a T and then go around defending that silly ruling.

Peace

It would be silly if the circumstances werent egregious, bad,blatant. As silly as saying a defender has a right to stand in front of the inbounder...etc.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It would be silly if the circumstances werent
egregious, bad,blatant.

OK.

Originally Posted by BigCat

As silly as saying a defender has a right to stand in front of the inbounder...etc.

BTW, I guess you need to take this up with Rule 7-6-5. Might want to also look at 7.6.5 as well.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK.



BTW, I guess you need to take this up with Rule 7-6-5. Might want to also look at 7.6.5 as well.

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

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?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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?

Actually I was not specific, but next to the thrower sounds like "next to" when you are within 3 feet. Again, I was not referencing the actual language, but the team cannot prevent a player next to the thrower by standing next to each other. There also used to be a S&I reference to this as well if you remember the old comic book.

And I really do not need to prove anything to Bob or you on this matter. I stand by my statement and if you accept it or not, so be it. I am not trying to "prove" many things in this area.

But now that is over, where is your reference for giving a T for pushing an teammate into an opponents? I gave you both a rule and a case play for my situation. But then again, remember I get in trouble remember? Still waiting for that to happen.

Peace