Chain Reaction Foul #2

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

I'm thinking as I go. If the only way i can penalize B3 is to call it non contact flagrant tech i cant award two FTs for act of shooting. If I am going to give the shooter 2 i have to penalize B2. Probably would. Team B owns B3.

[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