Chuck:

I am going to have to read this entire thread. As soon as I read the initial post that started the thread I immediately started typing my post that immediately precedes this one. I am sure my "snide" comments will follow shortly.

MTD, Sr.

Ok, forget about the play for a moment. "Briefcases?!?!?! How many people have a basketball briefcase?!?!?! But Mark has multiple basketball briefcases?

Mark, I don't think you should ever be allowed to make fun of me again! :D

I have a few stacks of papers & books in the corner of a room that my wife keeps promising to pour lighter fluid on...does that count?

Quote:

Mark, I don't think you should ever be allowed to make fun of me again! :D

You're kidding, right? (How's that for snide?)

Chuck:

The play in the thread you referenced is almost identical to the play in this thread. Amazingly, I never made a post in your referenced post. In both plays the DeNucci Doctrine of Double Jeopardy does not apply. In fact there is only one play that the DeNucci Doctrine applies, and it was applied only once in that goofy play that I had in the 1992 Ohio Games boys' 16U game and will probably never occur again. And this goofy play was not double jeopard, I charged the fouls in the order that they occured.

Moving onto the play in your referenced thread, PAULK1's first post (found on Page 2 of the thread) handles that play just the way I would have, except when he gets goofy about technical fouls on Team A's coach.

Actually I like that fact that you are bringing up old threads, kind of like me quoting rules books that are 35 yrears old, yet still applicable. Keep up the good work young grasshopper.

MTD, Sr.

This reminds me of the line from Wayne's World, namely Wayne's reaction after his ex-girlfriend gives him a gun rack as a present: "A gun rack... a gun rack. I don't even own *a* gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do... with a gun rack?"

MTD, your scenario works fine if you see the player coming onto the court. In fact, if you see it quick enough, you can blow the whistle for the illegal entry before the shot is taken; in which case A gets two shots and the ball with a few seconds left. Remember, as has been mentioned, this is the 2nd half, so B6 has to cross the midcourt line to interfere with a decent 3 point attempt.

A) If the officials don't catch the 6th player thing until after the "block," I am getting them for an illegal entry and playing with 6. Bottom line, I'm finding a way to get A four free throws if there isn't time on the clock.

I think most coaches would prefer their best shooter get 4 free throws than a three point shot anyway.

B) If I see B6 running onto the court, and blow the whistle and he's blocking the shot as time expires (no one heard the whistle), I'm getting him for illegal entry and dead ball contact technical fouls. Four shots.

And trust me, I would see contact on this play.

Why does it mean that the player would have to come from the OTHER end of the court - wouldn't it depend on which way the teams elected to run? Or is this pre-determined in HS/NCAA rules? (It isn't in FIBA - the home team has the choice).

As far as penalty, if it happened in one of my games I would call an unsportsmanlike foul (for the blocked shot) - which on a 3-point attempt, entitles the offence to 3 free throws, followed by possession at the half way line. I would also call a T for the player leaving the bench - another 2 free throws, plus possession.

Duane, as you guess, in FED and NCAA, direction is pre-determined so that both teams shoot at the basket that is closer to their bench in the second half.

In the NBA, the visiting team gets to choose which way it wants to shoot.

Fine. See if I carry you this weekend!! :p

Option (A) sounds good to me. The punishment pretty much fits the crime, and the goof that gave you the headaches is gone also with the 2 "T"s. A "T" on the bench player for illegal entry followed by another "T" on the same player for the unsporting act covers it, and can also be justified by rule. As for catching the player as soon as he comes on the floor, I don't think that that is really a major concern. There's a FED case play and an NCAA approved ruling (I think) that allows you to delay calling a "T" on the defensive coach to let the other team complete a scoring chance. I think that the same principle would apply here. Delay calling the first "T" until the scoring chance is over, but call the 2nd "T" immediately as soon as the scoring chance is interfered with.

I've got 3 T's

1. Illegal entry.

2. 6 players, because of the nature fo the play, and the ball not becoming dead on the official's whistle, we have a ball that is still live, and therefore, 6 players on the court with a live ball is illegal.

3. Unsporting Foul, if this isn't an unsporting act, than what is.

I'd only count 1 and 3 as indirect T's toward the coach. Because B6 becomes a player upon an illegal entry when the ball is live, therefore is no longer bench personel when this T is called. And since the unporting act started when the player was still bench personel, the coach should also be penalized for it.

Those are just my thoughts on the subject.

I think that a future rule change should allow a penalty of 3 shots for any technical foul which interferes with a 3-point attempt.

I believe that the NBA rules do allow the officials to award the 3 points and also charge the offending player with a "T". If that's wrong, I'm sure that Chuck will be able to correct it and give us the proper ruling.

Yup, that's right. That's also what you'd do if someone on the bench threw something at the shooter or otherwise interfered without coming onto the floor. I may even have given a case book reference in the old thread, but I don't remember.

End of game situation like this, more than 3 FTAs are needed. A 70% free throw shooter is going hit 3 of 3 only 34% of the time.