End of game or overtime played?

[JRutledge]

There is a little debate about what should be done in a situation that happened a few days ago in a Christmas Tournament.

With the game tied after the regulation horn at 41-41, Team A Head coach was assessed two technical fouls. B1 had blocked a shot and nothing was called.

Team B was awarded 4 FTs but the Team B player hit the first FT and the game was considered over as the score was 42-41.

The question I have was this correctly applied by rule or should they have played the extra period and shot all the FTs regardless of the score after those were completed?

I think the game should be over, but others think they should play the overtime anyway. I do not see a case play that exactly covers this situation. Most situations involve a score not tied and the game being decided by the FTs.

Any good answers?

Peace

[Rich]

The end of the 4th quarter happened with the score tied. OT will be played with B getting 4 FT and the ball to start.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[crosscountry55]

Agree with Rich. The only time you’d shoot first is if it is not clear if there will be an overtime. This would only happen if an idiot player or coach on the “winning” team decided to…well…be an idiot before the officials’ jurisdiction ended.

The crew screwed this one up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

The above are correct. If, instead, the coach spouted off just before the buzzer, you'd apply the T as part of the 4th. But, once the buzzer sounds and there is no pending activity, the quarter is over. OT is played.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is a little debate about what should be done in a situation that happened a few days ago in a Christmas Tournament.

With the game tied after the regulation horn at 41-41, Team A Head coach was assessed two technical fouls. B1 had blocked a shot and nothing was called.

Team B was awarded 4 FTs but the Team B player hit the first FT and the game was considered over as the score was 42-41.

The question I have was this correctly applied by rule or should they have played the extra period and shot all the FTs regardless of the score after those were completed?

I think the game should be over, but others think they should play the overtime anyway. I do not see a case play that exactly covers this situation. Most situations involve a score not tied and the game being decided by the FTs.

Any good answers?

I'm shocked that you don't know this.
Since the fourth quarter ended with the score tied any technical foul penalties will be assessed to begin the extra period.
The game is not ended with the first FT. All FTs will be attempted and the entire extra period will be played.

There absolutely is a case play which clearly covers this. It is 5.6.2 Situation C, part (a).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm shocked that you don't know this.
Since the fourth quarter ended with the score tied any technical foul penalties will be assessed to begin the extra period.
The game is not ended with the first FT. All FTs will be attempted and the entire extra period will be played.

There absolutely is a case play which clearly covers this. It is 5.6.2 Situation C, part (a).

The interpretation is rather confusing and was not applied that way in the game in question. Instead of stating what exactly is done, the Casebook plays this game with situations where the game is over but a T is given with the score not tied.

This is a situation where the score was tied and it was not even clear when the T was given either (based on a article). It is not about not knowing, it is more trying to figure out if that is the way to do it properly and to see if others agreed. And honestly, I do not come here for your approval big shot. I do not have to ever work with you or get your approval games. I was asking the same question that was asked on another conversation as there were people that debated what was to be done, which tends to happen in real life on or off this site.

I promised I would ask others for their interpretation instead of just going with what I felt and the reasoning because I had some doubt. It is kind of what you do as a veteran and someone that does not face every possible rules situation. This has never happened to me and frankly probably will never happen. I do not profess like you do to know every rule like the back of my hand or read in some 20-year interpretation for what is done at one time but might not apply to today. And considering how many times people discuss rules, it is always funny how someone like yourself will pull out some interpretation from the 90s and tell us how we have to apply to a situation that has no current literature on the topic. But hey, to each his own.

Also, 5.6.2 Situation C (a) was not the same situation that took place in the game. This was not a play with a contact near the end of the game, this was a blocked shot that clearly was not called a foul and a coach decided to go off and got ejected.

Peace

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The interpretation is rather confusing and was not applied that way in the game in question. Instead of stating what exactly is done, the Casebook plays this game with situations where the game is over but a T is given with the score not tied.

This is a situation where the score was tied and it was not even clear when the T was given either (based on a article). It is not about not knowing, it is more trying to figure out if that is the way to do it properly and to see if others agreed. And honestly, I do not come here for your approval big shot. I do not have to ever work with you or get your approval games. I was asking the same question that was asked on another conversation as there were people that debated what was to be done, which tends to happen in real life on or off this site.

I promised I would ask others for their interpretation instead of just going with what I felt and the reasoning because I had some doubt. It is kind of what you do as a veteran and someone that does not face every possible rules situation. This has never happened to me and frankly probably will never happen. I do not profess like you do to know every rule like the back of my hand or read in some 20-year interpretation for what is done at one time but might not apply to today. And considering how many times people discuss rules, it is always funny how someone like yourself will pull out some interpretation from the 90s and tell us how we have to apply to a situation that has no current literature on the topic. But hey, to each his own.

Also, 5.6.2 Situation C (a) was not the same situation that took place in the game. This was not a play with a contact near the end of the game, this was a blocked shot that clearly was not called a foul and a coach decided to go off and got ejected.

Peace

Another JRut classic. 354 words, just to say "I don't know".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a situation where the score was tied and it was not even clear when the T was given either (based on a article).

The article might not be clear, but your OP was -- and the answers given were correct. The T is part of the OT. Shoot the FTs and continue the OT.

[BigCat]

5-6-2 exception 4.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The article might not be clear, but your OP was -- and the answers given were correct. The T is part of the OT. Shoot the FTs and continue the OT.

Yeah, I am the one that wrote the OP.

There were some questions as to when or what had actually happened to someone that asked the original question (not here).

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Another JRut classic. 354 words, just to say "I don't know".

He does turn getting the last word into an art form, doesn’t he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk