Had a situation in my last game where B1 was guarding A1 with a 5-second count going. Out of nowhere “B2” comes up behind B1 and pushes him into A1. Contact was such that a foul had to be called. The fist goes up and the whistle is blown. As I’m walking to the reporting area I realize I have no idea who to call the foul on? Maybe I could have called a T on B2 for unsportsman like conduct but now that time has past. B1 is the innocent in all of this. So I called a push on B2. No one complained but now I am wondering if that was correct.

The foul should have been called on B1, as he directly contacted A1 and fouled him. B2's contact on B1 does not change this.

If you have anything on B2 it would have to be a technical. If you didn't think B2 deserved a T, then you have a foul on B1 and let him take it up with B2.

On what basis would you have a Tech? It is a live ball, contact foul. Does not meet the definition of a T. Common foul an B1.

Mregor

You can always have a tech for non-contact activity as well as dead ball contact activity. It really depends on what B2 did, and we didn't see the play. If B2 made no contact but deserved a call for a totally inappropriate act, the only thing you can have on B2 is the T. B1 made contact, so if it is a personal foul it is on B1.

To give an example why you might want a technical. A has ball and lead with time running out. B's coach wants a foul, B1 is oblivious. B2 runs over and gives a tremendous shove to B1 who crashes into A1 and sends both to the floor. If B2 made contact of this nature, you would have an intentional foul - two shots and ball. But B2 didn't make the contact and B1 fell into A1 - hardly grounds for an intentional.

Simple answer is T up B2 for the shove, ball was dead at the point of the shove, the foul never happened, A gets 2 shots and ball. Gets the right result and actually seems supported by rule to me.

Unless B2's actions are deemed unsporting, I don't believe you have any basis for the T. On the other hand, I have no problem with calling an intentional foul in the case you suggest. Call the intentional foul on B1, and if the coaches question you, tell them that the foul was intentional and B1 was the person who made contact. They may not be happy, but really, what can they complain about? An intentional foul was committed; an intentional foul was assessed.

Food for thought: what if B2 unintentionally knocked B1 into A1? Imagine it happens on a drive to the basket and A1 loses the ball as a result. Do you call a foul? Yes. On whom? B1. Why would the intentional foul be any different?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
[B]This is were my doubt comes in. I've call many foul on B1s in such situations. But now that B2 is in the picture???

We've discussed this before. It pretty much has to be on B1. Let B1 get his revenge, and if the coach is smart, he'll also deal with B2. I could see calling a T on B2 if he had four fouls and this was his way to avoid fouling out. I said I could see it. I'm not sure I'd call it that way. And would it be two fouls -- a personal on B1 AND a T on B2?

Different twist
 

B1 pushes A2 into airborne shooter A1 (tight quarters, maybe 3" gaps between them originally). Try fails. Who do you put on the line?

Re: Different twist
 

If we're in the bonus, A2.

If not - no one. A's ball for an inbounds.

On the basis of unsporting act and advantage gained. I had a similar play in a game recently. A1 dribling B1 is getting burned, B2 shoves B1 in front of and into A1. This is gaining an advantage similar to using a teammate to jump higher. I have no problem with the T on B2. It serves the best solution. A gets to have their best free throw shooter on the line. The proper player gets charged with the foul... It is certainly ugly, but I think it is the right thing to do. IMHO