Bench player intereferes

[Adam]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Really? Suppose B6 thinks he should be in the game with 10:00 left in the first half, so he runs onto the court, plays (otherwise legal) defense and steals the ball. Now the official realizes that team B has six players. Are you going to charge two Ts?

Am I? No.

Can I? Yes.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
There is not one basketball official here that has not had at least one game in his/her career where he/she has discovered a team playing with six players and each and every time that has happened we all have only charged the team with a technical foul for having too many players on the court; there were no other technical fouls involved.


MTD, Sr.

Mark,
There's a big difference. In every case I've ever seen and heard of involving 6 players; there was no illegal entry involved. In virtually every case, the coach subs in a player and the intended player never leaves the court (or returns to the court with the subbing player after a timeout.) This is not the same situation, since we have a player entering illegally (unnoticed) and then playing with the other 5.
Flagrant Tech on B6 and team tech on B.

Dan, would you like some butter?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Jurassic Referee:

I don't have my rules books in front of me because my basketball rules briefcases (see posts by Chuck and Dan) are still up in the attic, but I do not have to quote a rule to tell you that if you discover Team B playing with six players, you do not charge B6 with a technical foul for illegal entry and Team B with a technical foul for having six players participating on the court at the same time. How do I know? There is not one basketball official here that has not had at least one game in his/her career where he/she has discovered a team playing with six players and each and every time that has happened we all have only charged the team with a technical foul for having too many players on the court; there were no other technical fouls involved.

If B6 had punched A1, then I would have two separate fouls, a technical foul against Team B for too many players on the court and one for the flagrant foul by B6 for punching A1.

[/B]

Mark, so you're telling me that if B6 interferes with the play by punching A1, you'd call that another, separate "T"- but if B6 instead interfered with the play by blocking a shot, you wouldn't call a "T" for that act at all? What's your logic on that? They're both separate, unsporting acts that are completely different from the other act of having too many players on the floor. You're not being very consistent in calling it one way under one circumstance, and a completely different way under a slightly different circumstance.

As for not having your books handy, please let me refresh your memory- NFHS rules- NCAA are basically the same:
- Rule 10-4-1(g)- "Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to acts of conduct such as team member(s) not remaining seated on the bench....".
- Rule 10-4-2--"Bench personnel shall not enter the court unless by permission to attend an injured player".
- Rule 10-1-6-- "A team shall not have more than five team members participating simultaneously".
- Rule 10-4-1- "Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul". That one leaves just about anything up to the official's judgement as to whether an act is unsporting or not.

Mark, please note that B6 committed all of those acts listed above, and in sequence. There is nothing in the book that I know of that states that you CAN'T charge B6 with a T" for three of these acts (6 on the floor being a team "T"), as you are trying to aver. I believe that something similar to that was pointed out to me by an official that once called 3 separate "T"s on a play where A1 jumped off of A2's back, and then dunked the ball. Iow, there's nothing in the rules that will say that your opinion is correct, and that Snaq's and Ref18's aren't. The play simply isn't covered in the rules. Camron's position of using R2-3 to award 3 points and call a "T" on B6 is just as valid and defensible as any other opinion that has been given so far also.

All I know is that I'm gonna come up with something on this play that will ensure that team A will not be disadvantaged in any way by B6's act, and that B6's butt is gonna also get run out of the game for giving me a headache in the first place. And as the play isn't specifically covered in the rules, there are different ways to accomplish that objective while covering my butt at the same time.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 25th, 2004 at 10:21 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]



Jurassic Referee:

Read Bob Jenkins's post to Snags just above your post. He says the samething I am saying, you cannot have two technical fouls in this situation. Please site me a situation where you have charged B6 with a technical foul for illegally entering the game when the first infraction of the rules you discovered was that Team B had six players on the court.

Remember what I just said above:
There is not one basketball official here that has not had at least one game in his/her career where he/she has discovered a team playing with six players and each and every time that has happened we all have only charged the team with a technical foul for having too many players on the court; there were no other technical fouls involved.

Are you telling me that when you discovered a team playing with six players that you charged the team with a technical foul for having six players on the court and the sixth player with a technical foul for illegally entering the court?

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

Feel free to explain here.

I will say that I've seen a team down by three in the last three seconds of game shooting three shots exactly (yep, you guessed it) three times in my career and (of course) three of them made three of three.

One was in OT of a state final, and the kid who was something like a 60%er made three with NO time on the clock and his team won it in double OT. Unreal.

Another was my team, when I was an assistant. We had a 55% shooter hit three of three with :03 left in regulation as we came back from 18 down with 5:45 left. We won on a double OT buzzer beater by a freshman who was only in because four others had fouled out. The girl who made the three-of-three only missed one more FT all year and finished at 67%.

The last was as a head coach, we fouled a three-point shooter with :01 left up by three. (Ugh.) She hit them all but we won in overtime.

In a nutshell: you make assumptions concerning the validity and the uniformity of the FT shooters prior statistics that are generally not valid when you did your simple calculation (.7 X .7 X .7 = 34%). Based on your own experience, using these same assumptions, we could just as easily conclude that *any* shooter will *always* (probability = 1) make 3 of 3 FTs when the game is on the line.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

In a nutshell: you make assumptions concerning the validity and the uniformity of the FT shooters prior statistics that are generally not valid when you did your simple calculation (.7 X .7 X .7 = 34%). Based on your own experience, using these same assumptions, we could just as easily conclude that *any* shooter will *always* (probability = 1) make 3 of 3 FTs when the game is on the line.

My experience is invalid due to small sample size.

If you are referring to the "streakiness" of shooting, may I refer you to:

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULT...onomicBR(1995)

http://www.hs.ttu.edu/hdfs3390/hothand.htm

and especially

http://www.hs.ttu.edu/hdfs3390/hh_1998.htm

I was also looking for a piece of work about FT shooters. It took NBA players with long careers and compared their percentages of second shots made when either making or missing the first, and it was remarkable how a career 75% guy, on the second shot of two after a miss on the first would make 75%, and on the second shot of two after a make on the first would also make 75%.

I stand by my 34%.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
If B6 had punched A1, then I would have two separate fouls, a technical foul against Team B for too many players on the court and one for the flagrant foul by B6 for punching A1.

[/B]

1) Read Bob Jenkins's post to Snags just above your post. He says the samething I am saying, you cannot have two technical fouls in this situation. Please site me a situation where you have charged B6 with a technical foul for illegally entering the game when the first infraction of the rules you discovered was that Team B had six players on the court.

2)Are you telling me that when you discovered a team playing with six players that you charged the team with a technical foul for having six players on the court and the sixth player with a technical foul for illegally entering the court?

[/B][/QUOTE]1) Bob is saying the same thing that you are saying? Read your own post from before above where you say that YOU would call 2 T's in a similar situation. What's the difference between B6 coming off the bench to steal the ball from A1, or B6 coming off of the bench and fouling(punch-whatever) A1. You're telling me that if B6 had stolen the ball without fouling, there can't be a 2nd. T called- but if B6 had fouled A1 while trying to steal the ball, you can call a second T? That doesn't seem too logical to me.

2) Yup, I'm telling you that- if the player came off of the bench the same as in this sitch. Can you cite any rule or a case book play that states that I can't? I can't think of one, but I've got an open mind.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

My experience is invalid due to small sample size.

If you are referring to the "streakiness" of shooting, may I refer you to:

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULT...onomicBR(1995)

http://www.hs.ttu.edu/hdfs3390/hothand.htm

and especially

http://www.hs.ttu.edu/hdfs3390/hh_1998.htm

I was also looking for a piece of work about FT shooters. It took NBA players with long careers and compared their percentages of second shots made when either making or missing the first, and it was remarkable how a career 75% guy, on the second shot of two after a miss on the first would make 75%, and on the second shot of two after a make on the first would also make 75%.

I stand by my 34%.

Sigh. By using your experience we have shown conclusively that simply stating 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. is inaccurate at best, regardless of the sample size. Again, you are ignoring simple well known concepts. Start here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesianAnalysis.html

then go here

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/...ributions.html

to see what I mean by some types of distributions (your references might or might not be useful in determining THE distribution for A particular shooter, BTW, as might many other physical & psychological factors). Next go here to see why I say your original statement is inaccurate at best

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/Moments.html

paying attention to links concerning variance & deviation. BTW, the outcome of the 3 FTs might end up with a probability distribution looking a lot like this:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html

And finally go here

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/ErrorAnalysis.html

to see how the uncertainty of this is dealt with.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Sigh.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh.

[/B]

[/B][/QUOTE]



OK, let's switch for a while.

I haven't been following along, did you call Mark an ignorant slut yet?

Doesn't matter. Mark...you ignorant slut.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

I haven't been following along, did you call Mark an ignorant slut yet?

Doesn't matter. Mark...you ignorant slut.

[/B][/QUOTE]Never mind.

Btw, shouldn't that be "Mark...you ignorant Dexter"? Don't want Mick mad at us.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Btw, shouldn't that be "Mark...you ignorant Dexter"?

Nope. It should be "Jane, you ignorant Dexter".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Nope. It should be "Jane, you ignorant Dexter".

Um, well, yeah......

That kinda why I threw in the "never mind". For ol' Emily (RIP).

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Don't want Mick mad at us.

I don't get mad very often.
I like popcorn.
mick

[Adam]

If you guys would quit eating your popcorn so loud, we could continue our discussion.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
There is not one basketball official here that has not had at least one game in his/her career where he/she has discovered a team playing with six players and each and every time that has happened we all have only charged the team with a technical foul for having too many players on the court; there were no other technical fouls involved.

Are you telling me that when you discovered a team playing with six players that you charged the team with a technical foul for having six players on the court and the sixth player with a technical foul for illegally entering the court?

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I said this earlier, but I think I got drowned out by the din of popcorn eating.

This situation is different than any 6 player example I've ever seen or hear about actually happening. Every time one of us has seen this, the coach had made a substitution and the player who was supposed to sit down did not; normally after a timeout or a multiple substitution. I've never a 6th player run onto the court during play.
Since this is a situation that none of us has seen (or maybe one or two of us), you cannot go on precedent to back up your doctrine that we cannot give both T's here.