Trying to get away with something.

[Pantherdreams]

This is not a situation most of you would face exactly with NFHS and NCAA rule sets as its mostly a product of changes to the FIBA rules over the last few years.

Lets look at the scenario:

B1 deflects the ball away from a dribbling A1 at near half. Appears to be off to the races with no one between him the ball and basket.

a) A1 loses his mind and cussing and hand waving about the call.
OR
b) you take off down the court and a complaining coach jumps up onto the floor and into your path.

Both are deserving of Tech's at what point do you administer them?

The issue here is that historically to stop fast breaks clear path or not teams committed fouls. Now any foul clear path (or not) that is deemed to be done to be stopping the break is a 2 shot foul and the ball back. A technical though is a 1 shot foul and ball at point of interruption.

At what point in these situations would you call the tech. Immediately? After the play has progressed? After the shot has been taken on the break?

[BillyMac]

Not the same situation, violation rather than a foul, but I believe that this caseplay shows the purpose and intent that the NFHS wants us to use in such situations:

Keep in mind that the NFHS doesn't have "clear path fouls" so we often have to improvise.

NFHS 9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

That's what I would do under NFHS rules, "wait and whack".

What does one do under other rule sets?

I honestly and literally don't have a clue.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not the same situation, violation rather than a foul, but I believe that this caseplay shows the purpose and intent that the NFHS wants us to use in such situations:

Keep in mind that the NFHS doesn't have "clear path fouls" so we often have to improvise.

NFHS 9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

That's what I would do under NFHS rules, "wait and whack".

What does one do under other rule sets?

I honestly and literally don't have a clue.

I am not going to climb up into "the attic", and Billy knows why, but I am 99.99% sure that this CB Play predates the NBC Rules Committee splitting into the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules Committees and therefore is still in effect in NCAA Men's because there has been no Rules Change, Editorial Comment, Points of Emphasis, Approved Ruling/CB Play that has changed the "original ruling" and there is not reason for it not to the "ruling" for NCAA Women's either.

Regarding FIBA Rules I am not sure if there has ever been a CB Play regarding the Play being presented and I am not climbing up into "the attic" for this Rules set eitehr.

NBA/WNBA Rules: I am sure that there are members of the Forum that can shed some light on this Play per the Rules.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

For NFHS
10.5.1 SITUATION F:

A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle this situation?

RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be ejected. If A's coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-5-1a)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For NFHS 10.5.1 SITUATION F

Nice.

Thanks Nevadaref.

I couldn't find this

You're the "Casebook King".

[Pantherdreams]

Came up at a meeting after a similar play happened on Giannis breakaway in NBA. Coach was on floor and official ran into so play was blown dead etc. Joking tweets about new transition defense vs Giannis.

We decided much like the board, delay the tech if possible to allow the shot attempt. That way they get their bucket and the free throw, the offneding team just gets the ball OOB.

If they do something egregious enough to make you stop the breakaway probably egregious enough that you toss the coach or player to boot along with the 1 shot foul and ball at point of interruption.