Didn't happen, but I was wondering what you could do if it did. HS and NCAA rules.

Team A down by 3 points, A1 releases ball at half court and a sub (B) at the table runs on to the court to block it as time expires.

It doesn't seem justified to only give a T with two free throws.

What would you do? (congrats coach on a smart but cheap win?)

D

Boy...I'd be so fired up!!! I'd seriously consider scoring the bucket and administering the FT's. That'd teach em!

Haven't we had this question before? What I logged in my memory at that time was, "I'm never going to need this" so I don't remember the answer.

I think I'd assume, in reading this, that there's no way the bench defender could get onto the court to block the shot on the way up, thus it had to be at the basket, and thus you'd give the shot on the basis of goaltending, and then free throws for the flagrant T.

Now that I think about it, I doubt this is physically possible, except in the NBA, since at the end of a game A is shooting in front of their own bench, and I can't see how a B player could get to the ball from the bench in time to make a difference in the game. If the shot didn't go, it couldn't possibly be from the unsportsmanlike act.

I suppose a more realistic question would be if a bench player came onto the court and fouled the shooter. Then you could give three shots, plus two for the T and that comes out pretty fair, unless it's 7th grade.

Too bad the search function is down. We've had some long discussions on this type of play. Having a sub doing it is different, though. The other threads used a player off of the bench.

If it's a legal block with no contact, there's nothing to call there. So, go to Plan B. Award a technical foul for a sub entering the court without being beckoned(R10-2), plus a second T for having more than 5 team members participating simultaneously(R9-1-6). They are two separate acts. Give team A 4 FT's for the 2 T's.

There is a solution to this play, but it is not your solution. I would charge B6 with a technical foul for entering the court illegally. The technical foul for this infraction does not cause the ball to become dead because of continuous motion. When B6 blocks A1's shot, B6 can be charged with a second technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct for interfering with A1's field goal attempt.

So I count six fee throws now!

Illegally entering court!
Unsportsmanlike act!
Six players on the court!

3 T's

AK ref SE

Absolutely NOT!! Only two technical fouls and four free throws in my interpretation: illegally entering the court and unsportsmanlike conduct. Illegally entering the court and six players on the court really cannot be penalized for the same act, either you have one or the other but you really cannot have both.

MTD, Sr.

The technical foul for this infraction does not cause the ball to become dead because of continuous motion. [/B][/QUOTE]Care to explain that one, O Great Rules Guru? :rolleyes:

That statement doesn't make any sense at all, in the context of this play. Or did you put it in there just to confuse the newbies? From the original post, A1 <b>released</b> the shot. THEN, the B sub blocked it. According to Rule 4-11-1, continuous motion ends when the ball is in flight- i.e. continuous motion isn't involved in this play in any way,shape, or form.

Gonna deny that R4-11-1 exists too, Mark?

It is now your turn to write your latest treatise on why you are the only one in the whole world that could possibly give the right answer to this play. Babble on!

Heeheeheehee.....

Told you so! "The only possible correct interpretation is MY interpretation"- MTD Sr.

Illegally entering the court and six players on the court really cannot be penalized for the same act, either you have one or the other but you really cannot have both.

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

Jurassic Referee:

As a Moderator of this Forum, it pains me to inform you that personal attacks in the Forum are not tolerated. If you can not conduct your posts in a gentlemanly manner, you should consider not posting at all.

I read the post to read that A1's releasing of the ball and B6 entering the court occured at the same time. But your interpretation that A1 had already released the ball before B6 had entered the court is an equally valid reading of the post.

You are correct that if A1 had already released the ball when B6 entered the court, continuous motion is not a factor, but if the ball is still in A1's hand then continuous motion is a factor.

But in any case, two or three points (depending on A1's position on the court) cannot be awarded to Team A for B6's blocking of A1's field goal attempt. But the two technical fouls that I proposed are still the most logical infractions of the rules that can be charged.

MTD, Sr.

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


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.

MTD Sr. is correct. The point is to come up with enough Ts to give A a chance to win, which is what they had before B's unsporting act.

In a previous thread, the sitch had a sub entering the court an tackling A1 before he launched the last second shot. My opinion there was to give the T for entering the court illegally, plus an intentional (and flagrant) foul.

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]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]

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]

So it sounds like the answer to JR's question is "no but I do have an opinion".

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.

I'm pretty sure there would be contact on the attempt so I'd have 3 throws for that foul and 2 for the Tech for coming off the bench / illegal substitution / 6 players on the court or whatever flavor you want to call it. First have A1 shoot the 3 and then any member of A can shoot the T. If there was no contact, or even close to no contact, I'm not sure what I'd do. First, if I noticed it right away I guess I'd issue the T. Put some time on the clock if it's more than 1 second, and give them another chance by inbounding at the d-line. One of those two scenarios would have to fit. I just don't see it physically happening, B6 coming from in front of the table to block a shot after it was released without it even being close to contact. If he's such a good leaper, why isn't he in the game in the first place?

Mregor

This is why I was thinking about not continuing to referee after this year. One person thinks there opinion is the only one that counts and just because they have more years ( I have 9 years) they are right. I am the most Junior official in my association, and not age wise either. We keep losing our new official because of the attitude that only one opinion counts. I can count on one hand the amount of officials in my area that are ready for Varsity HS ball. I have seen about 12 new referees come and go after one season.
If someones opinion is so great, their opinion is the only interpretation that is correct, then they should be doing it for the NCAA commitee or the NBA.
This post probably wont last...But I got to say my peace!

AK ref SE

Yep, a couple times. Here's the most recent thread:

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/7209

There was also a similar topic raised by "crew" in one of his GPS threads, but I can't locate it. . .

What??
 

Why would you care what someone's opinion is? I mean really, how does that affect your ability to officiate or kill your desire? If that is the way you feel, you heart is not in it to begin with. Especially if you are worried about what someone might say here.

If you want a rules reference, use 2-3 which says, "The referee shall make decisions on any point not specifically covered in the rules." This situation is no where in the casebook and it does not say where it is in the rulebook on how to handle this. So if this happens (which no on says it has), I am doing what I feel is best.

And JR and Mark can argue until the cows come home. I am sure neither live in the same place and what decisions they make are not going to matter what the other individual thinks. And if that kind of thing ruffles your feathers, then you were not committed to officiating in the first place. Please do not take this as an attack, but to complain what someone thinks as the reason to stop officiating (when they live no where near you), you were not committed in the first place. If you stay in, we would love to have you. But there are guys every year that drop out. You will not be the first and certainly will not be the last. ;)

Peace

Rut,
Your right I have lost my desire. My point about the one opinion is always right is directed at my local area. But my post is in general about the attitude! And certain people wonder why we cant keep new officials!

AK ref SE

A 2nd T may have been overkill in that situation, but I don't think it is here, Mark. I frankly don't care how we get there, but if B6 runs on the court and interferes with the shot, I'm shooting at least 4 free throws, possibly 5. If I tell the coach I've got one T for subbing without being beckoned and another for playing with 6 players, he doesn't have any complaint based on the rules. If he gets too lippy about it, we'll have 4 more for direct T's on the coach. I somehow doubt that he's going to challenge me too hard on it, and I'm willing to bet that player has seen his last seconds of playing time.

Regardless, Mark, the beef with your post is that you say flatly that the solution offered is incorrect, but don't provide a rules basis for that opinion, other than the stated opinion that giving two T's is overkill in a completely different situation. The situations aren't comparable on that basis.

Adam

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][/QUOTE]


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).

Hold on a minute. I never said that you could not have two technical fouls. I agree that there are and should be two technical fouls. And they are illegally entering the court and unsportsmanlike conduct. It a very big stretch to charge Team B with a technical foul for six players on the court too. Remember, if the officials saw B6 enter the court illegally, then the ball is dead per NFHS R6-S7-A7.

It is time for you to get out then.
 

I hope you can find something in your life that brings you joy. Because I will be damned if I stop officiating because of what some peers think about anything. I guess unless someone is where I am or where I am trying to go, that list of people I listen to is very small. Officiating is no different than any other job, hobby or passion. And I am sure if you had to, you would look the other way in those situations, why is officiating so much different?

Peace

Just to stir the pot a bit would anyone consider forfieting the game.

I just might.
 

Yes. Because what happen makes a travesty out of the game. Now that would be the extreme, but I would want to give the offended team some way to win that game. I probably would give two Ts, but that is me. And if someone wants to disagree that is fine. I will worry about it when this happens, which it probably never will.

Peace

It's not a big stretch at all. You're correct with the ball becoming dead. However, if he hits the shot you gonna kill it? Not sure I would. Also, if you don't notice the player ran on until he interferes, the ball isn't dead.
I think a more likely non-foul scenario has B6 stealing the ball on a break-a-way rather than blocking a shot.
Regardless, I've got two T's, and I fail to see the importance of how I got there.
Technically, if the ball is dead, I'm not sure how you could justify an "unsporting act" if you can't justify blowing them for illegal entry AND playing with 6.

Adam

Re: I just might.
 

That was actually my first instinct. I'm comfortable with 4 free throws, though, via technical fouls (so the shooting coach can pick his best shooter.) If they can't find a shooter to hit 3 of 4 free throws, I won't feel bad if they lose.

Losing mind?
 

Maybe not. But where in the RULES does it say you can't charge fouls separately under 10-1-6 and 10-2-2?

No no no
 

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.

Good. Fine. We'd all agree, except
 

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.

Mr. DeNucci should never
 

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

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 <b>can't</b> 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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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 :D

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

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?

Not saying this is or is not a good solution. What I want to know is how they can base a question on the use of
rule 2-3? Don't misunderstand, I think rule 2-3 is a good and necessary part of the book, but the very nature of the rule requires it to be so broadly worded that I could not imagine (until now) using it as the basis for the answer to a test question.

They seem to be saying that this is a case where a specific rule is not applicable, like when an official mistakenly chops time in. ;)

We're starting a new thread here, but the more I look at this, the more I have a problem with it. 2-3 gives the referee the right to add an odd free throw to the technical foul penalty? The penalty for a technical foul is
a point specifically covered in the rules, therefore 2-3 does not apply.

I just received my IAABO 2003-04 Refresher Test and the answers to it last week and I have not looked at it. Not only that, due to my knee rehab, I did not attend the Spring 2003 and Fall 2003 IAABO meetings so I did not take part in the questions on this year's test. But tomorrow I will email Roger MacTavish with everybody's concern's about the answer to Question #79.

MTD, Sr.

Why bother? Roger McTavish's opinion doesn't mean anything more than the opinion of the rawest first-year rookie on this Forum. IAABO can interpret the rules anyway that they want to. That still doesn't make their interpretation an official, valid interpretation. Only NFHS and the State governing bodies can issue those. The IAABO exam is meaningless to most of us,also.

I certainly don't have anything against IAABO, Mark. I actually was a member for many years, and I think that it is a good organization. What IAABO <b>doesn't</b> have is any kind of official standing when it comes to the rules, unless it happens to be in one of the few states that may happen to use IAABO as their State governing body. Care to argue that?

At the end of the day.......
 

you do whatever the hell you want to do. Because I for one am not going to concern myself over the most unusual play that would have to happen in my career for this to even be an issue. We have officials that cannot call the basic foul or basic violation and we are debating what would we do in a once in a life time play. I have not heard one person say this has happen to them, but this play was a "what if" situation. And if you guys want to argue over the many "what if's" situation, be my guest. I do not know that the NF or NCAA knows this play is even a concern to worry about. Why are we concerned then?

Peace

Interesting scenario, I referee to Fiba rules only and if I had a query on any ruling I would email Fiba directly and get a reply back back within 2 days. I think I know what I would do in this situation. Do you in the U.S. not have anybody who has the final say about certain rulings?

Why would we need someone to tell us what to do on a situation that might never happen? Seriously, that is what the casebook is for. But to answer you question, that is what our state representatives are for. And to be honest with you, I would not want to waste anyone's time with this situation. NF only creates rules to follow, they do not govern how all things are done in a state. So no, there is not one individual that is going to come back and make a ruling that everyone will agree with.

Peace

JR, thanks for the prompt reply. I suppose we can consider ourselves lucky to referee to one set of rules only. Makes our job that much easier.

The thing I think many of you international officials do not understand, this is not a problem. We have different governing bodies depending on what state you live in. And that is the only body that matters. The National Federation has many states that are members in the United States (not all 50 BTW) that belong to the NF, but your individual state is the only body that matters. I am only going to get playoff games from my state body which is the Illinois High School Association. What the ruling is in Ohio means nothing to me. And the NF might be the governing body that produces the rulebooks and gives rulings from time to time, but at the end of the day, if the IHSA wants us to do something, that is who we follow. No if's, and's or but's about it. I am sure that if any country in the world wants to have their own set of rules followed that are not word for word FIBA, I am sure they can do it for a specific league. Just like the NBA has their own set of rules and guidelines in America.

FIBA governs specific competitions and leagues. But if a league or group chooses not to be apart of FIBA, I am sure that is possible to have their own set of rules to participate under? Is this not correct?

Peace

I thought all this silly bickering was found on the McGriff board and this board was reserved for serious discussion. Silly Me!!!

Roger MacTavish is the Chairman of the IAABO Rules Examination Committee and therefore is the person to contact if one has a question about the Refresher Test. IAABO does not make its own interpretations. IAABO's believes that NFHS and NCAA interpretations are the only correct interpretations. IAABO does not give intepretations per se. The Refresher Test is for the exclusive use of its members and the Examination Committee bases it answers on NFHS and NCAA rules, casebook plays, and approved rulings.

Who is he?
 

I think what JR is trying to tell you is who cares. And honestly, you can name drop all day, it is still not going to change what anyone thinks about the rule. Folks are going to do whatever they feel like doing. Bottom line.

Peace

In your last two posts to this thread you made two comments that I find troubling.

I agree with you that the play we have been discussing in this thread while possible, the probability of it happening is very very small. I have found that complicated theoretical plays is a very good teaching tool, because it requires an official to break the play down into its components. When an official breaksdown the play, he sees how definitions and rules need to be applied and in the order that they need to be applied.

The more troubling comment is that people are going to do whatever they feel like doing. I can tell you from experience that too many basketball officials have that attitude. Who cares what is in the rules and and casebook, lets do whatever will get me tournament votes and more games next year.

I think that you may have mis-read the posts. The point that YOU are missing, Mark, is that, plain and simple, this play is NOT covered in the rules. You can break definitions and rules down for the next 6 months, and that fact won't change. You can voice your opinion on how you would handle it. So can Roger McTavish. But basically, that doesn't mean diddlypoo. If you're gonna use R2-3, then the referee that is there has to make up his mind on the best way that he thinks that it should be handled. If his thinking is different from your's or Roger McTavish's, who's to say who is right or wrong? Certainly not you or McTavish, or me or anyone else for that matter.

And that is fine. But I would rather have officials focus on things that are specifically covered in the casebook and what and what official ruling are out there, not what was pulled from the sky. Are we going to start asking what happens if a UFO comes from the sky while a shot is made and what to do next? Focus on the rules that are in front of you. Focus on the rules that have some basis in reality. This play is not reality and does not have a "reality" ruling from the parties that make the rules. So that is why you can do what you want.

This is not even covered in the casebook or rulebook for that matter. So I am not really sure I follow you. That is why 2-3 is there. And if someone pulls this stunt, I am going to make it right. I will be damned if I let a team possibly win a game because they found a loophole to get around. And until the NF or NCAA for that matter comes up with a specific way to handle it, <b>that is what I am doing.</b>

No Mark, let us all take the word of some guy, who none of us know, none of us will ever meet or will never have any influence on what the NF does or what my state does and listen to that guy. Yeah right!!! I do not care what IAABO thinks about this issue. I do not live in an IAABO state. I am not the official that took the picture with Lebron James, IAABO cannot punish me for my actions. It would be like someone from IBM telling me what to do and I work for DELL. And yes Mark, it is about the tournament games and advancement for me and many other officials. I do not officiate, just to say I officiated. I want to advance and have to follow the lead of those that are over me. If I want to have the opportunity to do so, I am not going to be listening to the word of someone from IAABO. Sorry, that is not how I work and many others. Just like I am still waiting for the IHSA Clinicians to tell me I have to tell the coaches about their timeout situation which I took heat for on this board. But that has not happen yet either, but I remember those telling me what I should focus on and what was important. This to me is the same kind of discussion. And that is personally disturbing to me, because you are worried about something that might never happen in your career and I am waiting for someone to say this did. Being that I am the King of Opinion, all you are giving at this point is just that. If you ask your boy, he will give his opinion on the subject as well. If this is such an important play, then the NF will put something in the casebook. And when they do not, that is what 2-3 is for.

Now that is my opinion. ;)

Peace

"FIBA governs specific competitions and leagues. But if a league or group chooses not to be apart of FIBA, I am sure that is possible to have their own set of rules to participate under? Is this not correct?"

You are definitely correct in this statement. Nobody really has to referee to the rules. The rules are there as a guide and is referred to in certain situations. You know this and I know this.

That's not quite what Rut was getting at, I think. His point is not that referees can disregard the rules, only that various leagues (and nations) are free to adopt whatever rules they choose. FIBA or NFHS have no jurisdiction over those leagues who are unwilling to submit to them.

aw

In general - you're right, this is overkill.

However, I tend to think that this type of play is overkill, inappropriate, and completely out of line for the game of basketball - so I'd charge the team with every T I could stick on them.

Kinda makes me wish for football . . . . .

I think that there is actually time left on the clock when the foul occurs. I would T the kid for coming on without being beckoned. Give the Intentional Foul. Administer the four shots and give team A a throw in to try a for another two.

Welcome to the board
 

Well, first, I can't call an intentional foul because there's no contact. Second, if you did it anyway, it's 3 FTs for intentionally fouling a 3 point shooter, not 2.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

No Mark, let us all take the word of some guy, who none of us know, none of us will ever meet or will never have any influence on what the NF does or what my state does and listen to that guy. Yeah right!!! I do not care what IAABO thinks about this issue. I do not live in an IAABO state. I am not the official that took the picture with Lebron James, IAABO cannot punish me for my actions. It would be like someone from IBM telling me what to do and I work for DELL. And yes Mark, it is about the tournament games and advancement for me and many other officials. I do not officiate, just to say I officiated. I want to advance and have to follow the lead of those that are over me. If I want to have the opportunity to do so, I am not going to be listening to the word of someone from IAABO. Sorry, that is not how I work and many others. Just like I am still waiting for the IHSA Clinicians to tell me I have to tell the coaches about their timeout situation which I took heat for on this board. But that has not happen yet either, but I remember those telling me what I should focus on and what was important. This to me is the same kind of discussion. And that is personally disturbing to me, because you are worried about something that might never happen in your career and I am waiting for someone to say this did. Being that I am the King of Opinion, all you are giving at this point is just that. If you ask your boy, he will give his opinion on the subject as well. If this is such an important play, then the NF will put something in the casebook. And when they do not, that is what 2-3 is for. Now that is my opinion. ;) Peace

Rut:

As my 10 year old would say: Take a chill pill.

Happy New Year

MTD, Sr.

Chill pill?
 

I can see your 10 year old is not hip with what is going on in todays world. That term played out in the 80s. He must have been watching VH1 lately? Because I have not heard that phrase since I was in High School, which was before you son was born. But then again, not sure there are many urban influences in Ohio.

But I am not the one trying to tell the board what should be called based on your opinion and that opinion of someone we do not care to know. I guess Clarett thought that the world cared about what he thought too?

Go Blue!!! :D

Peace