Chain Reaction Foul #2
 

A1 is in the act of shooting.
B3 pushes B2 into A1 causing illegal contact with the shooter.
A1’s attempt is unsuccessful.

Q: Is the foul charged to B3 or B2?

I am calling the foul on B2 and A1 is shooting free throws if A1 is the shooter.

B3 with the Push.

Calling the foul on B2 is PC cuz you probably dont wish to explain yourself. See the whole play.

I'm good with a foul on B2 in this one. B2 did not legally contact A1. It doesn't matter that B3 gave b2 the impetus that caused the contact. There is no rule against B3 pushing B2.

Is there some case play or interpretation or rule that I'm missing on this situation? I can't find anything.

B2 gets the foul, he is the one who actually fouled A. He can take it up with B3 later.

How can you call a foul on B3 for contacting his own player? Find rules support for that one.

Illegal contact usually isn't intentional. The fact that B3 was involved doesn't change that.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I'd have to see your play. I suppose I could always call unsportsmanlike on B3. I'd have to see it. If it is simply B3 trying to get to the shooter and he shoves B2 trying to get by or something similar i agree with everyone else. Foul on B2.

I do think unsportsmanlike is an option but it would need to be bad. If a player fires a ball at an opponent we can penalize that so id assume if he fired a teammate through the air at opponent that could be unsportsmanlike….

I'll be honest, I'm really not sure what you're saying here, cuz. But you get points for trying to use a camp cliché. You don't get full points, though, because it's not really applicable to this play.

I have no problem explaining this to either coach. "the foul is on the player who actually contacted the opponent." I bet I can say that and enunciate extremely well in less than 5 seconds.

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

No, but I am thirsty. He who causes the foul. I had A2 hit B1 Who hit A1 and i nailed A2 for it. A coach went ballistic. Had 3 board members in the stands who went breathless till I got my preliminary out. Better 2 Be right than popular.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Yoi were right for that play. In the OP, you would be wrong.

That would depend on who he said was fouled. If he called A2 for fouling A1 using the logic from above ...:rolleyes:

Yes he has been stretching a lot of plays lately. :rolleyes:

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

Peace

This has nothing to do with the play in the OP.

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

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

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. :)

Fair enough…thx

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.

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.

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. :D

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.

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?

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.

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. :D

Peace

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.

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

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.

Honestly, I see this solution as completely viable. You HAVE to call the foul on B2 and give the shots.

But I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility to ALSO issue a technical on B3.

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

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.

I agree completely.

Please don't. If you see a purposeful push from a teammate that results in serious contact with an opponent, then please let us all know when that happens. Sometime tells me you might have other problems than just wanting to T someone on the court. Like you might have teammates fighting and have to deal with that. There is also no rules support for such a thing, because it is not going to likely ever happen. And it is not likely going to happen because what benefit would it be for a player to do this on purpose. But again, we are on the internet, so someone has to make something like this relevant in a reasonable discussion about a play that is also very unlikely.

Peace

^^^^
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.

__________
*As I've noted before, I'm a serious soccer ref with very limited, low level BB ref experience many years ago. The more BB games I watch and the more I read here the more I think I may do BB when my kid is done playing.

Exactly, we're going to have enough shit find us, we don't need to go looking for it.

Hard shove should not do it here.

The T is there for you if you need it... but to consider that, we really need to be talking about a "Holy crap, what did I just see" moment. Like said above, a once-in-a-career moment.

Thread has gotten more interesting than I would have thought.

Adjustment to the OP:

B3 shoves (not hard or deliberate) A2 on the way to the shooter A1. A1 is hit by A2 in the act of shooting.

Just so we are on the same page. The foul is on B3 but it isn't a shooting foul because B3 fouled A2. So it is on the floor and we have A's ball OOB unless bonus is in play.

In this play, there are a few things to consider.

First, I'm giving A2 a lot of benefit of the doubt on whether the try had started so I can count the basket if it goes in.

I'm also thinking long and hard about an intentional foul unless B3 trips or something and it's purely accidental.

Ideally, the basket goes in and we penalize the foul accordingly.