Player Throws His Opponent To The Floor ...

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.19.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. A3 and B4 are in the lane. (a) A3 throws B4 to the floor; (b) B4 throws A3 to the floor. RULING: In (a), illegal and in (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live. (4-19-3d)

I see only one difference between these two fouls. One, by A3, is a team control foul, and the other, by B3, isn't a team control foul.

Since both are described in the same exact manner, player throws his opponent to the floor, why is only one deemed intentional?

While a team is in control, can player on that team can be charged with an intentional foul followed by two free throws and ball as the consequence?

Or, does one never shoot free throws for a foul against player who's team is in control, even if the foul is deemed to be intentional, or flagrant?

Why am I confused by such a seemingly simple casebook play?

And where are my reading glasses?

The ruling as described in (a) is wrong, because a team control foul is a common foul committed by the team in control of the ball. Because throwing an opponent to the floor is an act that rises above the level of a common foul, the intentional (or flagrant) foul penalty will supersede the common foul penalty and allow B4 to attempt free throws followed by possession for Team B.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The ruling as described in (a) is wrong, because a team control foul is a common foul committed by the team in control of the ball. Because throwing an opponent to the floor is an act that rises above the level of a common foul, the intentional (or flagrant) foul penalty will supersede the common foul penalty and allow B4 to attempt free throws followed by possession for Team B.

I agree with you 99.9% that ruling (a) is "wrong".

But technically, ruling (a) isn't "wrong". The (a) ruling states that situation (a) is "illegal", which it most certainly is.

If ruling (a) is "wrong", it's "wrong" because, in combination with ruling (b), ruling (a) is confusing, misleading, incomplete, and ambiguous, but it's not "wrong" because situation (a) is indeed "illegal"

Thank God the caseplay has been changed.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In 22-23, the ruling has been changed to "In (a) and (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you 99.9% that ruling (a) is "wrong".

But technically, ruling (a) isn't "wrong". The (a) ruling states that situation (a) is "illegal", which it most certainly is.

If ruling (a) is "wrong", it's "wrong" because, in combination with ruling (b), ruling (a) is confusing, misleading, incomplete, and ambiguous, but it's not "wrong" because situation (a) is indeed "illegal"

Thank God the caseplay has been changed.

IT WAS WRONG!!!!

Situation (a) included the words "and, in (b)", meaning the punishment for (b) is different than the punishment for (a).

If you are going to be anal, then be completely anal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

IT WAS WRONG!!!!

On many different levels, which is why it's gone.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.19.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. A3 and B4 are in the lane. (a) A3 throws B4 to the floor; (b) B4 throws A3 to the floor. RULING: In (a), illegal and in (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live. (4-19-3d)

I see only one difference between these two fouls. One, by A3, is a team control foul, and the other, by B3, isn't a team control foul.

Since both are described in the same exact manner, player throws his opponent to the floor, why is only one deemed intentional?

While a team is in control, can player on that team can be charged with an intentional foul followed by two free throws and ball as the consequence?

Or, does one never shoot free throws for a foul against player who's team is in control, even if the foul is deemed to be intentional, or flagrant?

Why am I confused by such a seemingly simple casebook play?

And where are my reading glasses?

Billy:

The 2022-23 NFHS Basketball CB Play 4.19.3E RULING has been amended. It now reads (see the highlighted portion):

"In (a) and (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live."

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

While this type of conduct most definitely falls under NFHS R4-S19-A3d and therefore is an IPF, it could also be very easily be an IFF under NFHS R4-S19-A4.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's the 21-22 case play, and I'm pretty sure we discussed it before.

In 22-23, the ruling has been changed to "In (a) and (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live."

I hope that can end the discussion.

I knew this was too much to hope for.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I knew this was too much to hope for.

Bob:

I did not see your original comment. I read Billy's original comment and then immediately posted my comment concerning the correction in the 2022-23 Casebook.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I hope that can end the discussion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I knew this was too much to hope for.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I read Billy's original comment and then immediately posted my comment concerning the correction in the 2022-23 Casebook.

I blame ilyazhito, I posted my comment in response to ilyazhito's post.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I blame ilyazhito, I posted my comment in response to ilyazhito's post.

Billy:

No one to blame. All three of us are getting old, LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

All three of us are getting old ...

I don't know him personally, but I get the feeling that ilyazhito is a "young grasshopper".

Note: Young'uns can look up the 1972 television series "Kung Fu" on the Google.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't know him personally, but I get the feeling that ilyazhito is a "young grasshopper".

Note: Young'uns can look up the 1972 television series "Kung Fu" on the Google.

I was referring to Bob, you, and me. But I only consider myself old if it can get me a senior citizen discount, !

MTD, Sr.