Only two points?

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If you don't have a rules reference, then how can you say that anyone else is wrong? You are giving your opinion only. That certainly doesn't mean that your opinion is automatically right.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 29th, 2003 at 01:20 PM] [/B]

From reading the original post, I am going to assume that the poster wants the game officials to see B6 illegally enter the court. No lets break down the play. B6's illegally entering the court is a technical foul and the ball is dead immediately unless A1 is in the act of shooting or A1 has already released the ball for a try, then that ball does not become dead until the try is made or missed (continuous motion applies for these two conditions) or some other act causes the ball to become dead.

If an attempt or try is not involved in the play then the ball is dead and there cannot be a technical foul for more that five players on the court because the officials have already stopped the game for B6 illegally entering the court. The ball is dead (NFHS R6-S7-A7), play is stopped. Why would the game officials want to complicate the play by charging Team B with a technical foul for having six players on the court when the game has already been stopped for B6's technical foul for illegally entering the game. The ball remained alive because of the attempt, therefore charge B6 with a second technical foul for blocking A1's try (unsportsmanlike conduct). [/B][/QUOTE]

The technicals occur simultaneously. It's an electron thing.

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Do you have a rules reference to back that statement up? [/B]

Over the years (32 years to be exact) I have had a sixth player run onto the court illegally, because he/she thought that they were supposed to be in the game. Everytime this has happened, my partner(s) and I have come to the conclusion that charging two technical fouls is overkill. If the official sees the player illegally enter the court, then this is the technical foul that should be charged. If the official does not see that player illegally enter the court but sees six players on the court, then charge the team with a technical foul for too many players. But it has been my belief and the opinion of many of my friends that two technical fouls are overkill. [/B][/QUOTE]

in this insane hypothetical case where the remedy you suggest would not be adequate to the infraction.

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Mark, I am going to continue posting. I am also going to post the same way that I always have. If I disagree with your personal rules interpretations, I'm gonna tell you about it, whether you like it or not. Don't confuse your status as a moderator with your status as a poster, Mark. You don't get any special privileges.

If someone wants to delete one of my posts for some reason, that's fine. But I don't think that anyone should delete anything because a post happens to disagree with you, or any other moderator.

be involved in making executive decisions about postings in which he is a participant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

If an attempt or try is not involved in the play then the ball is dead and there cannot be a technical foul for more that five players on the court because the officials have already stopped the game for B6 illegally entering the court. The ball is dead (NFHS R6-S7-A7), play is stopped. Why would the game officials want to complicate the play by charging Team B with a technical foul for having six players on the court when the game has already been stopped for B6's technical foul for illegally entering the game. The ball remained alive because of the attempt, therefore charge B6 with a second technical foul for blocking A1's try (unsportsmanlike conduct). [/B][/QUOTE]Please cite a rule that says that you can't charge B6 with a player technical foul under R10-2, and also charge Team B with a team technical under R10-1-6 at the same time.

Just because you say that you can't, doesn't mean that it's right, Mark. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to represent your opinion as fact- unless you can find some rules to back that opinion up.

[ref18]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


Over the years (32 years to be exact) I have had a sixth player run onto the court illegally, because he/she thought that they were supposed to be in the game. Everytime this has happened, my partner(s) and I have come to the conclusion that charging two technical fouls is overkill. If the official sees the player illegally enter the court, then this is the technical foul that should be charged. If the official does not see that player illegally enter the court but sees six players on the court, then charge the team with a technical foul for too many players. But it has been my belief and the opinion of many of my friends that two technical fouls are overkill.

In any normal situation, i would not consider giving 4 FTs for illegal substitution, but, in this situation, due to the nature of the act, i would penalize this to the full extent of my power, as this is a deliberate act, not just a mistake. Although someones personal opinion is that 6 FTs would be overkill, nowhere in the rulebook does it say this. Now, i'm just trying to remeber who said that you would shoot 6 FTs for someone lifting someone else up to slam dunk the ball.

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I do not know about most technical fouls, but I have on situation that sticks out for me:

A number of years ago in the Regionals of the Ohio Games (Olympics style state games) in a boys 16U game: Team A is getting their clocks cleaned when A1 steals the ball. A2 runs down the court ahead of him and (I am not lying) gets down on his hands and knees and lets A1 jump off his back and then A1 dunks the ball. I immediately whistled the ball dead and T'ed A1 and A2 for violating NFHS R10-S3-A8e, and I T'ed A1 for violating NFHS R10-S3-A5. The second T on A1 was for dunking a dead ball and the false multiple T's were for climbing or or lifting a teammate to secure a greater height. Three T's for the price of one, it does not get any better than that.

[Edited by ref18 on Dec 29th, 2003 at 07:25 PM]

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ref18
And just a bit of a story about a board that I used to be a member of. We were told that this forum was set up in order to give us private scripts for programming satellite cards. This promise was not kept, and several of the moderators left and started their own board taking many of the members with them. This adminsitrator, deleted everyones account who went to the other board, I guess he took this as a personal insult. As this was a paid service, we complained, and we got a full apology. I guess the moral of the story is that although you may not like what is said, we all have the freedom of expression and don't let the power you have get to your head.

And thanks to a recent supreme court decision the board i was talking about no longer exists and i now have to pay for the cable i recieve.

Regardless of what some may think, freedom of expression and freedom of speech don't exist in private forums. Unless this is run by the government (and it's not), this is a private forum. As such, the owners can pretty much do what they want (or assign people to do so). If they don't like what you say, they can delete it.

The supreme court decision you refer to is not about free speech or free expression but about theft and piracy of work owned by others.

[ref18]

The supreme court decision really doesn't have anything to do with the content of my post, but the main point of the ruling was to state that the grey market dishes were illegal, although they were being subscribed to ligitimately. And that the only forms of legal DTH satellite services were those licensed by the CRTC.


You are right, our freedoms only are applicible when dealing with the government. I'm not quite sure what i was thinking when i typed that story up.

[Edited by ref18 on Dec 29th, 2003 at 07:19 PM]

[Camron Rust]

Now, as to the call(s) to be made in this case.

I agree with MTD. It is my opinion that you can't have both an illegal substitution and 6 participating at the same time. One act, one penalty.

However, I can't see that continuous motion would apply here unless that sub was superman. As someone else said and assuming teams were on the correct ends of the floor, there is no way that B6 could have entered the floor while A1 was in the shooting motion and have made it to A1 to block the shot.

Given that the shot was blocked, B6 must have been on the floor before the shot was started. If you call the entry to the floor, the ball is dead....no shot...and noone is participating. If you choose not to call that (and I wouldn't), the ball remains live and you have 6-players. I'm going to let A get the shot off and ignore, temporarily, any oddball infraction.

We have a precedent for this in the casebook where coach B says something to an official that warrants a T while A is on an undefended break. The casebook says to hold the whistle, let A score, then bang coach B.

If there was ANY contact, I'd also call a shooting foul.

For that matter, if you really wanted to find ways to push up the FT count, you could probably find someone else one the floor making contact and charge them with a common foul. Asuming the bonus, that would give some FTs.

All that said, I'd say that this is really not covered by te rules and invoke 2-3. I'd count the bucket and call a single flagrant T on B6.

I liken it to goaltending on the FT. The ball was illegally contacted during a shot. All other cases of the ball being illegally contacted during a shot are considered goaltending or basket interference.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Now, as to the call(s) to be made in this case.

I agree with MTD. It is my opinion that you can't have both an illegal substitution and 6 participating at the same time. One act, one penalty.

However, I can't see that continuous motion would apply here unless that sub was superman. As someone else said and assuming teams were on the correct ends of the floor, there is no way that B6 could have entered the floor while A1 was in the shooting motion and have made it to A1 to block the shot.

Given that the shot was blocked, B6 must have been on the floor before the shot was started. If you call the entry to the floor, the ball is dead....no shot...and noone is participating. If you choose not to call that (and I wouldn't), the ball remains live and you have 6-players. I'm going to let A get the shot off and ignore, temporarily, any oddball infraction.

We have a precedent for this in the casebook where coach B says something to an official that warrants a T while A is on an undefended break. The casebook says to hold the whistle, let A score, then bang coach B.

If there was ANY contact, I'd also call a shooting foul.

For that matter, if you really wanted to find ways to push up the FT count, you could probably find someone else one the floor making contact and charge them with a common foul. Asuming the bonus, that would give some FTs.

All that said, I'd say that this is really not covered by te rules and invoke 2-3. I'd count the bucket and call a single flagrant T on B6.

I liken it to goaltending on the FT. The ball was illegally contacted during a shot. All other cases of the ball being illegally contacted during a shot are considered goaltending or basket interference.

Camron:

I hate to give you the kiss of death (LOL) but thanks for the vote of confidence.

MTD, Sr.

[nine01c]

The 2003 IAABO Refresher Test had this question (close enough to have the same ruling; A sub at the table is still bench personnel until beckoned).

#79 Team A is behind by three points when A-1 in front of the team B bench attempts a 3-point try at the buzzer. A team B player comes off the bench and blocks the ball just after A-1 releases it. Official charges team B with a flagrant technical foul and awards team A three free throws. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes Rule 2-3 (Ha! almost like 9.01c)


They took into consideration that it was a 3-point try, thus the three free throws (would be two free throws had it been a 2-point try). It is flagrant because it displays unacceptable conduct, and technical because it is a noncontact act which is extreme or abusive, occuring at any time. Rule 4-19-4

To me this is the most logical solution. I don't see any justification for calling more than one foul for this one act.

[nine01c]

PS There's no way I would count the goal, even citing Rule 2-3.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by nine01c
The 2003 IAABO Refresher Test had this question (close enough to have the same ruling; A sub at the table is still bench personnel until beckoned).

#79 Team A is behind by three points when A-1 in front of the team B bench attempts a 3-point try at the buzzer. A team B player comes off the bench and blocks the ball just after A-1 releases it. Official charges team B with a flagrant technical foul and awards team A three free throws. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes Rule 2-3 (Ha! almost like 9.01c)


They took into consideration that it was a 3-point try, thus the three free throws (would be two free throws had it been a 2-point try). It is flagrant because it displays unacceptable conduct, and technical because it is a noncontact act which is extreme or abusive, occuring at any time. Rule 4-19-4

To me this is the most logical solution. I don't see any justification for calling more than one foul for this one act.

So, Denucci's interpetation is contrary to the IAABO"s interpetation.

Hmmmmmm.....

I guess that means that the IAABO National office will soon be receiving a 40,000 word novel on why their interp is wrong.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
So, Denucci's interpetation is contrary to the IAABO"s interpetation.

Hmmmmmm.....

I guess that means that the IAABO National office will soon be receiving a 40,000 word novel on why their interp is wrong.

Personal attacks against moderators will not be tolerated. lol

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

Personal attacks against moderators will not be tolerated. lol

It wasn't an attack. I was just being obnoxious.

[just another ref]

When I suggested in "that other thread" that everybody should try to make up an unresolvable problem and post it, I was only kidding.

By the book, the way I see it, when B6 steps on the court you whistle the T. Then if there is any time left at all, A would have an opportunity to win by hitting 2 free throws and then setting up a catch and shoot play for the throw-in.
If this does happen all at once, (one step onto the court, block the midcourt heave as time expires) I see two technicals without any stretching of the rules. 10-2-2 He definitely reported without being beckoned. 10-1-6 If blocking a shot is not participating, then what is?