Reality Check

[Kelvin green]

Need just a reality check on a couple of plays..

1) Player A1 has shot ball, ball has com thru net and has hit floor, when player B1 clearly shoves A1 with two hands. The foul could not be let go... My partner correctly calls it, but I then had a discussion with him. I convinced him ( I think rightly) that since this was clearly a dead ball foul it had to be a T... Was I right on this? I cannot find my rul books..



2) I a lead administering a throw in near old 28' mark. A foul occurred in the paint away from the play. My partner calls it, I wanted to administer throw-in on baseline closest to spot of foul, Partner wanted to administer up hi where it was on original throw-in. In the game I was reffing it did not matter much where ball went but in a close game, it could make a difference. Should it not be closest spot to foul not where ball was? or am I just wrong?


Thanks

[mick]

I'm with you, Kelvin.
...Twice.
mick

[BoomerSooner]

One question number one, I would lean towards not calling it a Tech. If the ball has hit the ground and is in the vicinity of the endline, you can rule that ball was at the disposal of B. Remember the ball doesn't have to be in the hands of B, only at the disposal of B (I'm pretty sure this was designed to prevent a team from running clock and avoiding a 5 second count by just letting the ball sit there after a made bucket, the 5 second count can begin w/o B having the ball actually in their hands). Of course if the ball had bounded down the court or into the stands, its kinda tough to rule the ball "at the disposal" of B and you may have to go with a Tech. Also I would lean back towards a Tech if the push was excessive, but then we are getting into the realm of flagarent.

Anywho...on to question number two. The ball definitly should have gone down to the baseline. And you are absolutly right, it could have made a big difference. My basketball experience as player and official have led me to believe it is so much easier to score from the baseline inbounding position. In the end though, this is totally up to your partner as to where to administer the throw in as he made the call.

[Edited by BoomerSooner on Apr 29th, 2004 at 03:56 PM]

[devdog69]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner

Anywho...on to question number two. The ball definitly should have gone down to the baseline. And you are absolutly right, it could have made a big difference. My basketball experience as player and official have led me to believe it is so much easier to score from the baseline inbounding position. In the end though, this is totally up to your partner as to where to administer the throw in as he made the call.

[Edited by BoomerSooner on Apr 29th, 2004 at 03:56 PM]

It's not up to the partner to decide, by rule, the throw-in is at the spot nearest the foul, which in this case is the baseline. I don't have my books or I would give you the reference but somebody will find it. I know because I was doing it wrong for awhile, thinking it should be where the ball is, and it was brought to my attention so I looked it up and changed my ways.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Need just a reality check on a couple of plays..

1) Player A1 has shot ball, ball has com thru net and has hit floor, when player B1 clearly shoves A1 with two hands. The foul could not be let go... My partner correctly calls it, but I then had a discussion with him. I convinced him ( I think rightly) that since this was clearly a dead ball foul it had to be a T... Was I right on this? I cannot find my rul books..



2) I a lead administering a throw in near old 28' mark. A foul occurred in the paint away from the play. My partner calls it, I wanted to administer throw-in on baseline closest to spot of foul, Partner wanted to administer up hi where it was on original throw-in. In the game I was reffing it did not matter much where ball went but in a close game, it could make a difference. Should it not be closest spot to foul not where ball was? or am I just wrong?


Thanks

Play 2: You are correct, the throw-in is made from the spot nearest the foul.


Play 1: First, B1's foul is either an intentional foul or a flagrant foul depending upon how bad the contact was. Second, whether it is a personal foul or a technical foul is determined by whether the ball is live or dead at the time of the foul. If the administering official has started his/her throw-in count then the ball is live (personal foul), if the administering official has not started his/her throw-in count then the ball is dead (technical foul). The key is whether in the administering official's judgement the ball was at the disposal of the team entitled to make the throw-in.

[Brad]

You are right on both counts.

#1 is obviously a technical foul.

What official starts the count when the ball is on the floor unless the other team is purposefully not taking the ball out?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Brad
You are right on both counts.

#1 is obviously a technical foul.

What official starts the count when the ball is on the floor unless the other team is purposefully not taking the ball out?

Well, I do..... sometimes. Freshmen girls, probably not. Varsity boys, state tournament, if they're not working toward getting the ball out and then in, I'm counting. At least that's my theory, I've never been in that situation.

Why not call this foul an intentional based on the "excessive contact clause?" It avoids the explanations of why a T and avoids the judgment whether the ball is live or not. And the ball comes back in right where it would have been anyway.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Why not call this foul an intentional based on the "excessive contact clause?" It avoids the explanations of why a T and avoids the judgment whether the ball is live or not. And the ball comes back in right where it would have been anyway.

It must be late as your logic is a little goofy because:

#1 This foul is being called intentional because of the excessive contact whether you call it a personal or a technical. If it wasn't you wouldn't be calling it at all if you judge the ball to be dead, since contact which is not intentional or flagrant is ignored during a dead ball. And if you say that it is an intentional personal foul, then you are not avoiding the judgment on the status of the ball (live/dead) at all, you are clearly saying it was live, since personal fouls can only occur during a live ball.

If you mean why not just call it an intentional personal instead of a technical, consider these reasons:
#2 The live ball/dead ball question is of paramount importance here because it makes a difference in who is allowed to shoot the free throws. Judging that the ball is dead makes the foul a tech and permits anyone from the offended team to shoot the two free throws, while the player who was fouled must be the free thrower on an intentional personal.
Just imagine Shaq being the player who was fouled on this play!

#3 The hothead who did this foolish act is now only one more T from being out of the game, if you step up and correctly assess the dead ball tech. If you only call it an intentional personal, then he is allowed to do the same thing FOUR MORE times. Do you really want that? At the very least your ruling would allow the kid to commit an unsporting act later in the game without being disqualified.

#4 Lastly, in NFHS games, the throw-in following the technical would be at the division line, as opposed to the closest spot for the intentional personal. Depending upon how much time is left in the quarter (half if you are in MA) that could be important. Or if the offending team runs a tough full court press, the division line throw-in would negate that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Lah me. One of the worst things that you can do out on the court is over-think a call, and this is a prime example. Just call it what it is, folks. If a B player has the ball for the throw-in, then you call the foul on B1 a personal foul of some kind- your choice of common, intentional or flagrant. If a B player hasn't picked the ball up for the throw-in yet, if you're gonna call anything on B1, it has to be an intentional or a flagrant T, again your choice.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
It must be late as your logic is a little goofy....

Oh, no, surely not. My logic is never goofy, no matter how late the hour!

And I prefer Jurassic's answer--much easier to understand. So there.

Now, could someone please explain the difference between an intentional technical foul and a just-plain-ol' technical? Why does this foul have to be either intentional or flagrant? I mean, I know the sentence in the rule book about ignoring contact after the successful shot, unless it's intentional or flagrant. But that doesn't exactly square with the other sentence that any contact foul during a dead ball is a technical foul. Does that mean any contact during a dead ball unless it's after a successful shot?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Now, could someone please explain the difference between an intentional technical foul and a just-plain-ol' technical? Why does this foul have to be either intentional or flagrant? I mean, I know the sentence in the rule book about ignoring contact after the successful shot, unless it's intentional or flagrant. But that doesn't exactly square with the other sentence that any contact foul during a dead ball is a technical foul. Does that mean any contact during a dead ball unless it's after a successful shot? [/B][/QUOTE]Actually, the 2 sentences do go hand-in-hand, Juulie, even though they are in different aricles of the same rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE says that "contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant...". Then rule 4-19-5(c) - "a technical foul is an intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead..."- tells you what type of foul to call if that dead-ball contact is ruled intentional or flagrant- i.e. specifically an intentional or flagrant technical foul. If you think that the contact during a dead-ball is incidental, then you just ignore it.It probably would have been a lot clearer if the FED had put those 2 sentences together in the same article, instead of spreading them out.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now, could someone please explain the difference between an intentional technical foul and a just-plain-ol' technical? Why does this foul have to be either intentional or flagrant? I mean, I know the sentence in the rule book about ignoring contact after the successful shot, unless it's intentional or flagrant. But that doesn't exactly square with the other sentence that any contact foul during a dead ball is a technical foul. Does that mean any contact during a dead ball unless it's after a successful shot? [/B]

Actually, the 2 sentences do go hand-in-hand, Juulie, even though they are in different aricles of the same rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE says that "contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant...". Then rule 4-19-5(c) - "a technical foul is an intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead..."- tells you what type of foul to call if that dead-ball contact is ruled intentional or flagrant- i.e. specifically an intentional or flagrant technical foul. If you think that the contact during a dead-ball is incidental, then you just ignore it.It probably would have been a lot clearer if the FED had put those 2 sentences together in the same article, instead of spreading them out. [/B][/QUOTE]Thanks, Jurr. Next question, when a foul is an intentional technical, what's the administration? Who shoots, and where is the ball taken for the in-bound? And it goes "on his record" as a T, correct? I know we've gone over this before, but I'm still (permanently?) confused.

[Brad]

In high school the penalty for an intentional technical is the same as a regular technical foul charged against a player. Two shots and the ball and the foul is counted against that player.

Under NCAA rules there is a difference -- on a regular technical foul (unsporting, etc.) you shoot two and go back to the point of interruption. On an intentional technical you shoot two and the other team gets the ball at mid-court.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Brad
In high school the penalty for an intentional technical is the same as a regular technical foul charged against a player. Two shots and the ball and the foul is counted against that player.

Under NCAA rules there is a difference -- on a regular technical foul (unsporting, etc.) you shoot two and go back to the point of interruption. On an intentional technical you shoot two and the other team gets the ball at mid-court.

So if the administration is the same for an intentional technical as for a plain-ol' technical, why bother making the distinction?

[Brad]

Originally posted by rainmaker
So if the administration is the same for an intentional technical as for a plain-ol' technical, why bother making the distinction?

If it was a high-school game I wouldn't. It's similar to the flagrant excessive-contact signal in a high school game. If it's flagrant it doesn't really matter if you make that signal or not -- the player is disqualified.

I agree with your approach -- keep it simple! Just issue a technical and be done with it.