The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Casebook 7.5.7 sit A. (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105564-casebook-7-5-7-sit.html)

Blindolbat Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:16am
Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.
 
Doing some late night reading last night and came upon this in the book.
Can someone please explain this to me?

Quote:
B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1's try. A1 fouls B1 before returning to the floor.

Ruling: Since no free throws result from the player control foul, B's throw-in is from anywhere along the endline because of the awarded goal for B1's goaltending violation.

My head is thinking, why does the goaltending count on a player control foul? We wouldn't count a regular basket.
And if there's a goaltending, the ball would become dead at that point and any foul after that point would have to be a dead ball technical or flagrant foul. But it clearly says A1 is still an airborne shooter, so we don't have that.

So maybe I just don't know enough about my goaltending rules to know that this basket should count.

BryanV21 Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:35am
The violation happened before the PC foul, and we can't ignore the violation?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:39am
Awarded Basket ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindolbat (Post 1045569)
Can someone please explain this to me?
7.5.7 SITUATION A: B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1’s try. A1 fouls B1 in returning to the floor. RULING: Since no free throws result from the player-control foul, B’s throw-in is from anywhere along the end line because of the awarded goal for B1’s goaltending violation. (9-12 Penalty 1)

9-12-Penalty 1: A player must not commit goaltending, as in 4-22 … If the violation is at the opponent’s basket, the opponents are awarded one point if during a free throw, three points if during a three point try and two points in any other case.

Agree with Blindolbat that this casebook play has always been very perplexing.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the local explanation here in my little corner of Connecticut has always been that while true that a basket can't be "scored" under "normal" player control circumstances, the basket can sometimes be "awarded".

bob jenkins Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindolbat (Post 1045569)
Doing some late night reading last night and came upon this in the book.
Can someone please explain this to me?




My head is thinking, why does the goaltending count on a player control foul? We wouldn't count a regular basket.
And if there's a goaltending, the ball would become dead at that point and any foul after that point would have to be a dead ball technical or flagrant foul. But it clearly says A1 is still an airborne shooter, so we don't have that.

So maybe I just don't know enough about my goaltending rules to know that this basket should count.
The goaltending happened first. So, A gets two (or three) points.

A1 was still airborne -- so it's still a PC foul.

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:15pm
Always Listen To bob ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045572)
The goaltending happened first. So, A gets two (or three) points. A1 was still airborne -- so it's still a PC foul.
Nice.

Raymond Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:15pm
The foul doesn't negate the violation that already occurred. The penalty for the violation is an award of 2 points.

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:20pm
The Foul Doesn't Negate The Violation ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045571)
... the local explanation here in my little corner of Connecticut has always been that while true that a basket can't be "scored" under "normal" player control circumstances, the basket can sometimes be "awarded".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045574)
The foul doesn't negate the violation. The penalty for the violation is an award of 2 points.
Agree.

Raymond reminded me of the exact wording of our local explanation (probably brought up as a "contested" exam question answer, or when I served on the rules training committee): "The foul doesn't negate the violation".

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:27pm
May Not, At First, Seem To Make Sense ...
 
Another "may not, at first, seem to make sense" interpretation.

Along the same lines as a "blarge", where with no additional block called, no basket; but the addition of a block changes it from a player control foul to a double foul, and the penalty for a double foul allows for the basket to be scored.

Yet another reason why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.v...=0&w=227&h=171

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:49pm
Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 
Rule 6 - Section 7
Dead Ball
The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
Art. 4 . . . A player-control or team-control foul occurs.
Art. 5 . . . An official’s whistle is blown (see exceptions a and b below).
Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below).
Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when:
a. Article 5, 6, or 7 occurs while a try or tap for a field goal is in flight.
d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent (leave the court for an unauthorized reason, excessively arms).

ilyazhito Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindolbat (Post 1045569)
Doing some late night reading last night and came upon this in the book.
Can someone please explain this to me?




My head is thinking, why does the goaltending count on a player control foul? We wouldn't count a regular basket.
And if there's a goaltending, the ball would become dead at that point and any foul after that point would have to be a dead ball technical or flagrant foul. But it clearly says A1 is still an airborne shooter, so we don't have that.

So maybe I just don't know enough about my goaltending rules to know that this basket should count.
That is also perplexing. The violation should render the ball dead, however, a specific exception to the rules makes fouls on or by an airborne shooter personal fouls, and thus renders a foul by an airborne shooter a player-control foul, even though his team no longer controls the ball by any definition.

The violation penalty then comes into effect, because the violation made the ball dead, not the foul. This is the reason why a player who was fouled in the act of shooting, scores, but has the basket taken away by basket interference on the part of a teammate, shoots free throws. In this case, the violation penalty awards A the points they would have earned on the field goal.

Nevadaref Tue Nov 23, 2021 06:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1045578)
That is also perplexing. The violation should render the ball dead, however, a specific exception to the rules makes fouls on or by an airborne shooter personal fouls, and thus renders a foul by an airborne shooter a player-control foul, even though his team no longer controls the ball by any definition.

The violation penalty then comes into effect, because the violation made the ball dead, not the foul. This is the reason why a player who was fouled in the act of shooting, scores, but has the basket taken away by basket interference on the part of a teammate, shoots free throws. In this case, the violation penalty awards A the points they would have earned on the field goal.
The only thing which is perplexing is your convoluted and confusing post, which also contains several factual errors of NFHS rules.

Here are the clear facts:
The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation.
Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead.

Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal.

The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.

BillyMac Tue Nov 23, 2021 09:11pm
Zombie Ball ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1045592)
Here are the clear facts: The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation. Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead. Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal. The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.
Thanks for he great explanation Nevadaref.

But how can we have two dead balls on the same play?

6-7-9, the goaltending, makes the ball dead first. Check its pulse, it's dead.

Then 6-7-4, the player control foul, give the ball the coup de grâce and makes it really dead for good.

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

youngump Tue Nov 23, 2021 09:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045597)
Thanks for he great explanation Nevadaref.

But how can we have two dead balls on the same play?

6-7-9, the goaltending, makes the ball dead first. Check its pulse, it's dead.

Then 6-7-4, the player control foul, give the ball the coup de grâce and makes it really dead for good.

What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?
If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

bob jenkins Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 1045598)
if the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?
2-3

Blindolbat Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1045592)
The only thing which is perplexing is your convoluted and confusing post, which also contains several factual errors of NFHS rules.

Here are the clear facts:
The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation.
Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead.

Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal.

The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.
Ok. This is the most clear explanation I've heard or read regarding this. I appreciate everyone chiming in. A very rare situation I would have missed until now

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:09am
Intentional Or Flagrant ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045597)
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act? Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?
Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=217&h=164

crosscountry55 Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:30am
Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045577)
Rule 6 - Section 7
Dead Ball
Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below).
Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when:
d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.
My suggestion to the rules committee for clearing this all up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bob jenkins Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045601)
Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?
I agree the goal tending causes the ball to become dead (exception 4 applies to swinging the elbows and to leaving the court, not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want).

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

crosscountry55 Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045603)
Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.
Good point. Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket (still no RA in NFHS). But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

So I guess my editorial suggestion above may not be necessary after all.

Always listen to Bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:36am
Dunkin' Donuts ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1045604)
Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket ... But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.
crosscountry55: Great example. Thanks.

Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:41am
Applicable Rule Language ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045603)
... not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want ...
I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:44am
How To Safely Handle A Zombie ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 1045598)
If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?
Like opponents, one from each team?

bob jenkins Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045606)
I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.
Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:29pm
Needs A Deep Dive Study ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1045602)
Rule 6 - Section 7 Dead Ball Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below). Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045608)
Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.
Although I haven't given it much of a deep dive study, I kind of like crosscountry55's idea.

Unfortunately, it's still just an idea and not yet applicable to the kerfuffle ruling in the current casebook play.

Thus, I stand by my questions regarding this casebook ruling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045597)
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?
While there are rule exceptions to a ball not becoming dead right away, thus delaying death, I'm not aware of any rule exception that resurrects a doornail dead ball and making it to become alive again.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.d...=0&w=315&h=177

Also need a rule exception for this (I don't believe that there's currently an exception in the rulebook for this):

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045605)
Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:46pm
Sorry Guys ...
 
Low hanging fruit. Couldn't resist.

Black Friday is coming up. Amazon is gearing up to deliver.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/1c...57aac63a02.jpg

SNIPERBBB Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:51pm
As a possible rule change, one could argue that a PC foul on an airborne shooter occured the moment the shooter left the ground (all the elements of a PC foul sans the resulting contact have already occurred unless the would be offended player or another defender bails the shooter out by committing a foul on the shooter first). So retroactively the PC occurs first negating the goaltend.

bob jenkins Wed Nov 24, 2021 03:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045597)
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?
None. And it's not needed. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. (I'm shocked! Shocked! to find out that this is true!)

The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 04:12pm
Yes But ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045612)
The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.
Yes but (an official's famous, or infamous, last words) aren't we supposed to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant?

If the caseplay is the only citation (explanation, rationale) for this ruling, I can live with that, but would prefer to also have a rule language citation as well.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 04:18pm
Bingo ...
 
We have a winner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045571)
7.5.7 SITUATION A: B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1’s try. A1 fouls B1 in returning to the floor. RULING: Since no free throws result from the player-control foul, B’s throw-in is from anywhere along the end line because of the awarded goal for B1’s goaltending violation. (9-12 Penalty 1)
4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?

Also takes care of crosscountry55's dunk and charge situation.

Now we can all sleep peacefully tonight with visions of turkey legs and pumpkin pies in our heads knowing that all in the basketball officiating universe is copacetic.

Raymond Wed Nov 24, 2021 05:48pm
I already knew it and was wondering what the big deal was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 06:19pm
Smile, You're On Candid Camera ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045615)
I already knew it ...
I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?

Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Are we on Candid Camera? Where's the camera? Is it the camera in our laptops?

Raymond Wed Nov 24, 2021 06:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045616)
I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?



Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Where's the camera?
Because I'm doing other things during the day and not going to go find the exact citation in the rule book. It's pretty common knowledge (or should be) amongst veteran officials that after the ball is dead fouls can still be committed by or against an airborne shooter.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 06:37pm
Busy Hands Make Happy Hands ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045617)
Because I'm doing other things during the day ...
You were noticeably absent from this thread (only one early post). This must be the busy time of the year for you at work. Hopefully you have tomorrow off from work. Happy Thanksgiving.

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 06:42pm
Look At The Shiny Object ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045617)
It's pretty common knowledge among veteran officials that after the ball is dead fouls can still be committed by or against an airborne shooter.
Absolutely, but normally I think of the ball simply going in (or not) along with a foul by, or against, the airborne shooter.

The goaltending violation was the shiny object that distracted me.

Nice thread Blindolbat. Thanks.

bob jenkins Wed Nov 24, 2021 07:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045614)
Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?
Us? See post #18

BillyMac Wed Nov 24, 2021 08:04pm
Not Picking "Note" ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045621)
See post #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045603)
Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).
Agree. Would have liked to have seen it in the form of a question ... Wait? I'm being told ... Not Jeopardy? Never mind ... the quoted rule language, or at least the addition of the word "Note" to 4-19-1.

Now, back to that shiny object.

BigCat Thu Nov 25, 2021 05:20pm
See also 4.19.6A

BillyMac Thu Nov 25, 2021 05:47pm
Another Citation ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 1045623)
See also 4.19.6A
4.19.6 SITUATION A: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 slaps the ball on its downward flight.

RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 01:21pm
Doesn't Have To Be A Try ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045624)
4.19.6 SITUATION A: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 slaps the ball on its downward flight. RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)
It's interesting that the NFHS made (b) a goaltending situation (which must involve a try).

What if (b) had been a basket interference (doesn't have to be a try) situation?

Same ruling with a different rationale?

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:25pm
How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?

Are you just trying to extend this thread because it's come to a conclusion?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

bob jenkins Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045626)
How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?

Are you just trying to extend this thread because it's come to a conclusion?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Plus, it doesn't matter what B does (absent something arising to a T) since the ball is dead on the foul (it will be a TC foul, not a PC foul) by A.

NFHS made the specific case be goaltending, but it's not restrictive.

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:40pm
Apples And Oranges. ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045626)
How do you have an airborne shooter if there's no try?
I was basing my question on "ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended".

In situation (b), let's say that there was basket interference instead of goaltending, making the rationale of "the try ended" a moot point, the need for it to be a try to call goaltending is gone, with basket interference it can be a try, or not be a try.

I would think that the ruling would be the same, no basket, but for a different reason, the foul makes the ball dead, and one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.

I just thought it odd that the NFHS didn't keep the basket interference situation for both (a) before the foul, and (b) after the foul, allowing us to compare apples to apples instead of forcing us to compare apples to oranges.

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:45pm
Player Control Foul ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045627)
... it will be a TC foul, not a PC foul ...
Why not a player control foul?

RULING: In (a), both the violation and the foul are penalized. The basket interference by B2 causes the ball to become dead immediately. The violation is penalized by awarding the two points. The player-control foul on A1 is also charged. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. A defensive-goaltending or basket-interference violation committed prior to a player-control foul does not contradict the general statement that when a player-control foul occurs that player cannot score. In the case of a defensive violation, it is the violation which results in awarding the score. In (b), the ball becomes dead and the try ends immediately when the player-control foul on A1 occurs. The action of B2 is ignored as goaltending cannot occur after the try has ended. The ball is awarded to Team B for a throw-in from a designated spot out of bounds closest to where the foul occurred. (4-12-1, 6-7-4, 6-7-9 EXCEPTION, 7-5-4a, 9-11)

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:47pm
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Like I said, this thread is over because what should have been common knowledge to veteran officials has been documented with the proper citations. You are searching for things that I can't even decipher.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:50pm
Different Rationale ...
 
I'm now referring to the new caseplay, 4.19.6.A, brought to our attention by BigCat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045630)
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Just change the goaltending in situation (b) to basket interference.

I say same ruling, no basket, with a different rationale, one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.

The original situation (b) with goaltending had a rationale that one couldn't have goaltending because it was no longer a try (a necessary component of goaltending).

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 02:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045631)
I'm now referring to the new caseplay, 4.19.6.A, brought to our attention by BigCat.



Just change the goaltending in situation (b) to basket interference.

I say same ruling, no basket, with a different rationale, one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.
I have no idea what you're trying to ask. How about you type out the scenario exactly as you are asking instead of referring back to 15 different posts that we're supposed to cobble together.

Either way I doubt you're asking anything that's not already answered by applying the principles of the respective rules and case plays.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:02pm
Before ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045632)
You are seriously telling us that an airborne shooter gets fouled and you're going to let the defense grab the ball off the rim to prevent it from being a successful try?
No I'm not.

I'm telling you that if a player control foul occurs before the defense touches the ball on the ring or in the cylinder, I'm not awarding the basket.

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045633)
No I'm not.

I'm telling you that if a player control foul occurs before the defense touches the ball on the ring or in the cylinder, I'm not awarding the basket.
Ok... Why do we need to know that? Who is confused about that other than you? Who here thinks you can have basket interference when the ball is already dead because of a PCF?

Are you purposely trying to confuse new officials?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:07pm
Matthew 7:7 ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045632)
How about you type out the scenario exactly as you are asking ...
Modified Situation: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 commits basket interference.

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:10pm
So like I said a few posts above, I doubt you're asking anything that's not already answered by applying the principles of the respective rules and case plays.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:11pm
Apples To Apples ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045634)
Are you purposely trying to confuse new officials?
I'm actually trying to make it less confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045628)
I just thought it odd that the NFHS didn't keep the basket interference situation for both (a) before the foul, and (b) after the foul, allowing us to compare apples to apples instead of forcing us to compare apples to oranges.
And I'm still curious as to why bob jenkins thinks that this is a team control foul, makes me think that I'm missing something.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=336&h=140

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:20pm
One Post Back ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045632)
... instead of referring back to 15 different posts ...
My question (which contained the quoted casebook play) was in post #39, the casebook play was quoted in post #38, cited by BigCat in post #37.

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045637)
I'm actually trying to make it less confusing.



And I'm still curious as to why bob jenkins thinks that this is a team control foul, makes me think that I'm missing something.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=336&h=140
I'm here to tell you as somebody who reads your posts regularly and as someone who has a good track record of explaining rules and principles to new officials that you make things more confusing. You don't clear things up. You refer to multiple different posts and rule citations instead of asking a direct question.

If I'm a teaching a new official that the ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed, I don't want you coming behind me and saying "what if it's a basket interference","what if it's a goaltending?". That confuses new officials trying to learn.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

bob jenkins Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045629)
Why not a player control foul?
Yes, it could be if it were a try. Maybe it wa s a pass that went through the cylinder and eas touched after a foul be A1 -- this would be a TC foul.

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:30pm
Always Listen To bob ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1045640)
Yes, it could be if it were a try. Maybe it wa s a pass that went through the cylinder and eas touched after a foul be A1 -- this would be a TC foul.
Thanks. Get it. Something outside the purview of the casebook play, a modified situation for additional learning.

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:34pm
Direct Question ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045639)
... instead of asking a direct question.
My question was pretty direct:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045625)
What if (b) had been a basket interference (doesn't have to be a try) situation?

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:48pm
Next Level ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045639)
... teaching a new official that the ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed, I don't want you coming behind me and saying "what if it's a basket interference","what if it's a goaltending?".
Agree, but the casebook play in question, not me (I didn't write the casebook play, nor did I first bring it to the attention of the Forum), took your simple lesson (ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed) to the next level.

The purpose of the casebook play was to compare the ruling on a player control foul before a violation to a ruling on player control foul after a violation.

I just thought that it would have been simpler to demonstrate that by comparing apples to apples, having the violations be the same, be it basket interference, or goaltending, in both situations, both before and after the player control foul.

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 03:55pm
The case play showed examples of a violation prior to a player control foul and after play control foul. If you are confused by that, shame on you after all these years of officiating. If you are not confused, we don't need you to play proxy for new officials. Let them ask their own questions.

Let new officials learn. Don't dominate the room.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 04:05pm
Basket Interference And Goaltending ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045645)
The case play showed examples of a violation prior to a player control foul and after play control foul. If you are confused by that, shame on you after all these years of officiating.
No I'm not confused. Just saying that a casebook play comparing apples to apples would have made it simpler for those who have not officiated all these years.

Wondering why the NFHS took that approach, maybe to kill two birds with one stone, jamming both basket interference and goaltending into one casebook play, with one rationale based on something not being a try, a rationale that doesn't quite fit the other violation.

Raymond Fri Nov 26, 2021 04:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1045646)
No I'm not confused. Just saying that a casebook play comparing apples to apples would have made it simpler for those who have not officiated all these years.

...
So you ARE playing proxy. Let the room breathe. Let somebody who may be confused ask the questions that help them understand it the best.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac Fri Nov 26, 2021 04:51pm
Young'uns ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 1045647)
Let the room breathe. Let somebody who may be confused ask the questions that help them understand it the best.
You caught me. I would love them posting on the Forum, but it's always the same old farts (just kidding, except for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.).

I watch the "View" numbers so I know that there are non-posters lurking out there, some of them are probably young'uns.

Young'uns, please post.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1