Found this question on a website, but no answer. So I am curious.

Team A is down by 2 points as the game clock is running down. A1 attempts a 3pt shot. Bench player B6 runs onto the court and blocks A1's attempt as the buzzer sounds. What is the ruling?

This was an NCAA rules question.

[Edited by Jay R on Aug 23rd, 2004 at 11:42 AM]

There is no (consensus) ruling on this play.

A T only provides two throws, and that doesn't seem to be "fair".

Come up with some creative method to give A a chance to win the game.

The only fair thing to do in my mind.
 

I think this would be one of those "the referee can rule on anything not specifically covered in the rulebook."

I think Bob is right. I would call enough Ts to make to give the offended team a change to win the game.

One T for coming off the bench. Another for stopping the play. Now they have 4 FTs and the ball at the POI if they cannot score two points.

Sounds fair to me.

Jay, take a look at http://www.officialforum.com/thread/5533

Three shots for the foul on B6 against the shooter.
Two shots for the technical foul for an illegal substitution. If you really want to get mean, you can give A two more shots for B playing with 6 on the court (7 shots total).

Of course, if you give the last T, you'll likely have a direct T (total of 9 shots now) on the head coach for mentioning your mother.

Adam (I'm giving 5 shots and the ball here, working with FED rules.)

Thanks Chuck,

I was not a regular when it was originally debated.

I'm not sure what I said that last time this came up.

My current solution...

Using 2-3, consider it an unwritten form of goattending (a shot was blocked illegally)...count the bucket.

Then, call a flagrant T on the player.

Camron, I went back and read the thread... that wasn't your answer then. (Although Juulie agreed with you, then.) You were in the travesty and forfeit camp.

One thing I found interesting about the old thread (2 year ago) is that all of the discussion considered that the shooter had been fouled and many of the commentor's penalties for equalizing this illegal act, were based upon the shooter being fouled ... what if he wasn't? The situation still calls for an equitable solution.

great thread. if this ever did happen, the penalty has to hurt bad enough so that nobody elso wants to give it a try again. Doesn't seem like you'd have alot of selling to do to D coach as he'd should be busy beatin the snot out of his player. (unless, this is a "dirty" coach who told his player to do it) If that could be proven, I think this coach goes before the state board for punishment.

3 shots regardless if he was fouled or not...
 

because the bench player took this opportunity of a 3 pointer away from the shooter illegally.... although I can't cite a rule. I would give three shots (or two if he was inside the arc)regardless if he was fouled or not . Plus all the penalties Snaqwells mentioned plus I would probably assess a tech to the bench for good measure . That is nine shots and I don't think I would get an arguement from anyone in the gym .

Did you notice that this was an end-of-the game situation? That means that the defensive player had to come from the OTHER end of the court and into his opponent's bench area to interfere in the play.

One thing I found interesting about the old thread (2 year ago) is that all of the discussion considered that the shooter had been fouled and many of the commentor's penalties for equalizing this illegal act, were based upon the shooter being fouled ... what if he wasn't? The situation still calls for an equitable solution. [/B][/QUOTE]How about one T for a bench player being on his feet while play was going on, then another T for that player coming onto the court, and then follow that with a 3rd T for the player subsequently committing an unsporting act by interfering with play? You have three separate acts committed by the same goober, and three separate penalties are then applied for each act. Total of 6 FT's and the ball then goes OOB to the shooting team. And if it happened in high school, you'd also lay an indirect T on the head coach for EACH T charged to the bench player. Iow, the head coach is now also gone for the 3 indirect T's. Write everything up. That should take care of everything.

Oh, c'mon. You could easily throw in another T there for 6 players on the court.

After making fun of me in the thread about the dreams, I can't believe MTD, Sr hasn't made snide comments here after I posted another link from long ago. Especially since that thread is the origination of the DeNucci Doctrine!

I don't have my rules books in front of me because my basketball briefcases are in the attic right now and I do not feel like climbing up there to get them. That said lets break-down this play.


1) A1 is dribbling the ball toward his basket while there are only five players from Team A on the court and five players from Team B on the court.

2) A1 releases a three-point field goal attempt before time expires to end playing time in the fourth quarter (NFHS), second half (NFHS/NCAA), or overtime period (NFHS/NCAA).

3) Before time expires and after A1 releases the ball for his field goal B6 leaves the Team B bench and enters the playing court.

4) As playing time expires, B6 makes contact A1's three-point field goal attempt while the ball was still on its upward trajectory. The B6's contact with the ball occurs as the Timer's horn sounds to signal end of playing time. B6's contact with the ball causes the A1's field goal attempt to be unsuccessful.


What do the officials have beside what a US Marine would call a "cluster f***?"


RULING:

1) When B6 enters the playing court, B6 has committed a technical foul for illegally entering the court. I am going to make Assumption #1: The covering official saw B6 illegally enter the court and correctly sounds his whistle when B6 illegally enters the court. B6 will be charged with a technical foul for an illegally entering the court.

2) The official's whistle does not cause the ball to become dead. The Timer should stop the game clock when the game official sounds his whistle. Remember that NFHS and NCAA rules differ with the regard to lag time. Since we do not know if lag time was a factor in this play. I am going make Assumption #2: That the Timer did not stop the clock when the game official sounded his whistle and that had the Timer reacted correctly to the game official's whistle, the game clock whould have been stopped by the time B6 made contact with A1's field goal attempt.

3) Remember, that even if the Timer had stopped the game clock correctly, it is legal for a player from Team B to block A1's field goal attempt.

4) Applying Assumption #2, the game clock has to be reset to the time on the game clock at the time of B6's illegal entry onto the playing court.

5) Applying my Assumption #2 once again, the following two questions need to be answered: Does B6 become a legal player when he illegally enters the playing court? Can Team B be charged with a technical foul for having six players on the court?

The answer to the first question is no. B6 has not become a legal player. The game official sounded his whistle when B6 illegally entered the court. B6's technical foul was recognized by the game official when the infraction of the rules occured. The answer to the second question is no. Since B6's illegal entry onto the playing court was recognized by the game official when the infraction occured, Team B cannot be guilty of having six players on the court.

6) Even though any of the five legal Team B players could have blocked A1's field goal attempt after the official sounded his whistle and the game clock was stopped. B6 cannot. B6's contact with A1' field goal attempt should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct and should be charged with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. I am not going to get into how many team fouls are counted toward Team B's team foul count, B6 is disqualified for receiving two technical fouls. And Team A is awarded four free throws for B6's two technical fouls and will then receive the ball for a throw-in at the division line.

MTD, Sr.

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.

What if it was an intentional personal foul committed by one of the 5 legal players, how would you award more than 3 free throws in that case???

In the situation that this thread is about, we must find a way to give the team that's behind at least 3 shots.

Also, on a T, you can put any player in to shoot the shots. So naturally the coach will put in his best shooter.

If we're talking about a normal three point shot, the perhaps 4 shots are in order. If, however, we're talking about a half-court bomb, three would be plenty to make up for the lost opportunity.

Well...not quite, but this is close to what they teach in statistics 101.

If you're in Honesdale over the weekend Chuck will be happy to buy you a diet coke and I'll bore you with my explanation. :)

You can just give him one of the Cokes that you've already promised me! :)

Don't see how you can have both 2 AND 3. If A6 is a 6th player, then the block is not an unsporting foul. I could see going with either your number 1 and 2 together, or 1 and 3 together, but not all three. And I prefer 1 and 3 simply because then you can boot A6.

ref18:

Read my post from last night. If the official sees B6 enter the playing court illegally Team B cannot be charged with a technical foul for having six players on the court. B6's technical foul for illegally entering the court negates Team B being charged with six players on the court. Since the official saw the illegal entry by B6, then the second, and only other technical foul that can be charged against Team B is an unsportsmanlike technical foul charged against B6 of interfering with A1's field goal attempt.


Now, lets look at the original play in a different way. Lets assume that the officials did not see B6 illegally enter the court and did not realize that Team B did not have six players on the court, until B6 blocked A1's field goal attempt at the buzzer. The only infraction that can be penalized is Team B having six players on the court.

MTD, Sr.

Snags:

Isn't your (B) what I said I would do in my post?

As far as your (A) is concerned read my post of earlier tonight. You cannot have two technical fouls: one for illegal entry and one for six players. If you do not see the illegal entry, you only have six players on the court.

MTD, Sr.

Now, lets look at the original play in a different way. Lets assume that the officials did not see B6 illegally enter the court and did not realize that Team B did not have six players on the court, until B6 blocked A1's field goal attempt at the buzzer. The only infraction that can be penalized is Team B having six players on the court.

[/B][/QUOTE]Care to cite a rule or case book play that will back up your opinion above, Mark? If B6 hadda punched A1, would your same opinion still hold?

Mark,

I think you can have combine a T for illegal entry and for 6 players. We can call a T for illegal entry if the table informs us, can we not? We don't have to see it happen. You've got two separate infractions here.

My solution was different in one portion. If I've blown my whistle before A1 tries his shot, and no one hears it due to crown noise (or even if A1 and B6 are the only two who don't hear it), the ball is dead and the shot will not count. A will have any player take 4 shots, one for the illegal entry and one for the dead ball contact. B6 is done. If I don't blow the ball dead, then we've got playing with 6 and a personal foul on B6. I'll give A1 3 shots, and AX two more. B6 doesn't even get a T in this scenario, though, since I can't justify a T for liveball contact.

Care to cite a rule or case book play that will back up your opinion above, Mark? If B6 hadda punched A1, would your same opinion still hold? [/B][/QUOTE]



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.

MTD, Sr.

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?

And the chances of hitting the three-pointer are ...?

I'm not sure that only three throws are any disadvantage

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][/QUOTE]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)- <i>"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...."</i>.
- Rule 10-4-2--<i>"Bench personnel shall not enter the court unless by permission to attend an injured player"</i>.
- Rule 10-1-6-- <i>"A team shall not have more than five team members participating simultaneously"</i>.
- Rule 10-4-1- <i>"Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul"</i>. 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]

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.

Am I? No.

Can I? Yes.

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, 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)- <i>"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...."</i>.
- Rule 10-4-2--<i>"Bench personnel shall not enter the court unless by permission to attend an injured player"</i>.
- Rule 10-1-6-- <i>"A team shall not have more than five team members participating simultaneously"</i>.
- Rule 10-4-1- <i>"Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul"</i>. 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.

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%.

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? :confused: 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.

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.

Sigh.

[/B][/QUOTE]
http://www.burlingame.org/police/images/popcorn.gif

http://www.burlingame.org/police/images/popcorn.gif [/B][/QUOTE]

:D

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.

:p

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. :D

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

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

Um, well, yeah......

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

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

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

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.

What percentage of the time will a 70% free throw shooter make 3 of 3 FTAs in an end-game situation?

...On Friday night

I don't know. In real life you don't give enough information (there are too many variables) - how sure am I that the 70% is an accurate and valid measure that takes into account all possible variables - did the shooter just break the thumb on his shooting hand, what's his percentage under pressure vs no-pressure, is his girl friend in the stands, is he worried about failing history or that zit on his nose, what's his percentage when tired vs when rested, etc). Certainly your experience bears this out (3 out of 3 made every time you've seen it).

What you are missing is the following question:

"How certain am I that my answer is correct?"

If you're saying the answer is a certainty (probability = 1) - which I think you are - then you are clearly wrong.

If you're saying it's MOST LIKELY assuming ideal conditions over a huge number of trials that the answer is .7 X .7 X .7 then I agree (the Probability 101 answer). Just HOW likely is a question that can't be answered right now, pretty much all you can do is figure out how much UNCERTAINTY you're willing to live with before making a decision based on your calculation.

That's pretty close to the real life answer.

I've had a 6th player run onto the court during play. It was due to being confused after a timeout but it was only after the ball was inbounds that she came onto the floor.

I also believe that you can't charge two T's. If you charge them for entering the court, the ball is dead and there can't be 6 players.

Recent situation where with 4 second left, A1 shoots a 3 pointer and B1 fouls him. A1 made the basket. While reporting the foul, B's Asst Coach went to howlin, stop sign given and he ran straight thru it, T was issued.

A1 steps to the line and makes his "And1".
Coach A says A1 will be his shooter for T.
A1 makes them both, and scores 6 points in final 4 seconds of half.
Head coach for B is livid with what just happened and rather than yelling at his Asst, he yells at me. We start second half with 2 freethrows for T.
Guess who Coach A selects as his shooter? Yes he him em both. 8 points in 4 ticks.

This kind of FT shooting is possible, but not common. Coach A told me after the game; "A1 is prob only about a 50% FT shooter, but I had to go with the hot hand".

I know this has nothing to do with 6 players on the court but relates to FT shooting.

Camron:

Thanks for coming to my defense. Because you agreed with me, your knowledge of the rules will forever be questioned by others.

MTD, Sr.

Camron. You are right. If you see the player enter the court, you whistle it dead and immediately nail him. What I’m saying is, if you don’t see him come in, the rules allow for us to call two T’s. Do we? Not 99.9% of the time.
The same goes for calling multiple fouls. The rules allow for it on a good number of the fouls we call in the paint, but we don’t do it because the punishment wouldn’t fit the crime. The only instance where I would consider calling two T’s on a player running onto the court and proceeding to play is an end of game situation like this thread started with.
My point is not that this should be called regularly. My point is simply that the rules allow for it in this situation. I have yet to see anyone show me a rule that states otherwise.

I also believe that you can't charge two T's. If you charge them for entering the court, the ball is dead and there can't be 6 players. [/B][/QUOTE]Camron, could you explain that a l'il bit more? I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you are trying to say. I agree that you can't have 2 T's for the same act, but you sure can have separate T's for separate acts. Technical fouls are, by definition, dead-ball fouls, except for fighting.

Agree- obviously. :D

They are? That's news to me. ;)

Yup, wrong verbiage on my part.

It has happen to me.
 

I have had a 6th player just run onto the court. I can think of twice it happen in a game I worked. One was obvious and I stopped play immediately. The other time I did not notice it for several seconds and my partner blew the whistle.

I think you could easily have two T's on this play. Until someone can find me a specific rule or ruling that forbids it, I would call two Ts.

Peace

Not me....but that was not the issue.
 

You cannot have two Ts for one action. You can for two separate actions.

Coming onto the court is one thing. Coming onto the court and grabbing an opponent is quite another.

Peace

I have had on one or two occasions have had to charge a team with a technical foul for having six players on the court, and not once did I charge the sixth player with a technical foul entering the court illegally. Why? As some of my esteemed colleagues have already said, that
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999%

of the time the officials will not ever see the sixth player enter the court. All the officials will see is six players on the court. If one does not know how the sixth player entered the court, the sixth player cannot be charged with a technical foul for illegally entering the court. Illegally entering the court is an infraction of the rules that has to be observed by an official at the moment that the infraction occurs. If one does not see an infraction of the rules then one cannot rule that an infraction has occured. In other words, if you cannot see it happen it did not happen. (I guess I have just answered an age old quatum physics thought problem: If a lightning bolt strikes a tree in the woods and there is no one to hear the thunder has thunder really sounded.) But I digress.

If an official sees a player illegally enter the playing court then the infraction by the player causes the ball to be dead immediately (for exceptions see Rule 4 for the continuous motion rule, and Rule 5 or 6, I cannot think off hand right now which rule deals with live ball and dead ball; I think it is 5, and my basektball briefcases with my rules books are still in the attic) therefore a team cannot be guilty of playing with more than five players at the sametime.

Now I would like to address the reality of the orignial problem in this thread. The play occured at the end of the game. Since Team A's bench is at the same end of the court as its basket (For those not familiar with FIBA rules, the home team has choice of which basket it will shoot at during the first half and a team defends its own basket and tries to score in its opponents basket.): How did B6 illegally enter the playing court?

If A1 shot the ball from Team A's backcourt, that it is possible for B6 to come directly onto the court from Team B's bench. If A1 shot the ball from Team A's frontcourt, then the most logical scenario for B6 t enter the court and be close enough to possibly make contact with the ball is for B6 to already be at the scorer's table waiting to enter the game as a substitute. But it really does not matter from where B6 illegally entered the playing court, I believe it is a situation where the game officials should have seen B6 enter the court almost immediately, thereby making the ball dead unless A1 was in the act of shooting, but the clock does stop because of B6's technical foul.

If A1 is not in the act of shooting, when B6 illegally enters the court, the ball becomes dead immediately, and if A1 then releases the ball, B6 cannot be charged with a technical foul for contacting the ball, because the ball is dead.

If A1 is in the act of shooting, when B6 illegally enters the court, the ball does not become dead, and B6 should be charged with two technical fouls: one for illegally entering the court and one for unsportsmanlike conduct for making contact with A1's field goal attempt. I also want to state that B6's contact with A1's field goal attempt does not make the ball dead; if the ball continues on and passes through Team A's basket from the top, A1's field goal attempt is good. But it should be remembered that any of the other five Team B players can legally block A1's field goal attempt after B6's technical foul for illegal entering the court, in fact, any one of the five other Team B players can legally block A1's field goal attempt after B6 has illegally contacted A1's field goal attempt. It should further be noted any of the five players from Team A and any of the five legal Team B players could commit basket interferenc or goaltending.

Boy am I tired. That's all for now folks.

MTD, Sr.

You can call fouls when the ball is dead. So if it is seen, it does not rule out all action as legal from that point. Say what you want, but you have shown no rule that suggests otherwise. ;)

Peace

Now I would like to address the reality of the original post in this thread. It said that this was an NCAA question. For 6 pages, we've been discussing NFHS and NCAA rules references. Howinthehell did we get to freaking FIBA all of a sudden? :confused: and lol!

And the winner is...... :D

You must be tired, you made a mistake which I fixed for you:

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999799 999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999%

Mark,
I have called a Technical foul for a player entering the court illegal, even though neither my partner or I noticed it at the time. It was during a free throw and subs were coming in. The player in question merely ran in the direction of the bench before heading straight for the court. He never "reported" in; he never even made it to past his head coach. The table hit the buzzer and informed me that he had subbed in without reporting.

In hind sight, I'm wondering if this warranted a T. Must they report? Or must they be beckoned by the official?

Regardless, the table is capable of informing us of this infraction, are they not?

A sub has to report and also has to be beckoned onto the court. It's a T if they fail to do either(exception- you don't have to beckon subs between quarters), IF it's discovered before the ball becomes alive. NFHS rule 10-2.

Usual procedure though is to herd 'em back to the scorer's table and make 'em report properly, if you can- especially in the younger age groups. Saves a kinda cheap T.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 26th, 2004 at 10:07 PM]

It wouldn't be that hard to apply the George Carlin Theory here: Award a T for thinking about cheating, a T for setting up the situation to commit the cheating, a T for the actual cheating, and a T for enjoying the results of cheating. Dub each one Unsportsmanlike. That oughta do it!

MTD (and anyone else) - regarding the "no-see-um" policy, consider this play:

Team A has the ball in their frontcourt, and team B is playing man-to-man defense. All 10 players are in the frontcourt, and the trail is being a good trail and is behind the 'last' player.

B1 steals the ball, and before anyone can turn to run, throws a long pass to B6 who is standing right underneath B's basket for an easy layup.

What do you have?

(To play devil's advocate, if the refs take a second to realize what's going on, and the ball goes in before the whistle, do you still count the basket?)

I will join you in playing devil's advocate.

If the officials do not realize what's going on, and the ball goes in before the whistle, I would have to say that B6's field goal attempt is counted and charge Team B with a technical foul for having too many players on the court.

The reason I am going with this ruling is that how do the officials know when B6 entered the court. It is entirely possible that prior to Team A getting control of the ball, Team B had six players on the court (and the officials did not realize it). Team A then gained control of the ball and moved the ball into its frontcourt. Team B may not have realized that it had six players on the court and B6 was too lazy to hustle down to play defense and was cherry picking instead or maybe B6 decided not to go to the other end of the court because he had something in his eye or was fixing his shoe laces, etc.

There is another reason I support this ruling besides the fact I am the one making it. I had a very similar situation in a girls' H.S. freshmen game a few years ago; the officiating crew was a two-man crew.

The Team H(ome) dressed only six players. In the third quarter Team V(isitor) had the all in its frontcourt and I was T(rail) table side. The ball had gone out-of-bounds off H1 along Team V's sideline opposite the table. H6 was waiting at the scorer's table to enter the game. I beckoned H6 into the game. H6 ran onto the court and H5 ran toward her bench. Team V inbounded the ball and the inbounds pass went into the paint. I had closed down toward the Team V's endline because of congestion in the paint and did not notice that H5 had comeback to play defense. I do not know whether H5 ever left the court. Team V's coach was screaming in my ear the Team H had six players on the court. Just about then V1 scored and I immediately stopped play. I looked over at Team H's bench and sure enough there were no subsitutes or I should say the was not a substitute on the bench. I quickly counted all six Team H players on the court. The result, V1's basket counted, Team H was charged with a technical foul for too many players on the court. I did not charge with H5 with a technical foul for illegal entry because I do not know whether she ever left the court.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, since you don't know whether she left the court, you were right to charge the T. It's probable that she never left the court.

Dexter's situation is the rare case where I might consider two T's. Most times when there are 6 players, it's an honest mistake. This seems like a case where it is not, so I would consider the maximum penalty (a T for illegal entry and a T for playing with 6.)

That's consistent with rule 10-1-6, as well as casebook play 10.1.6. The penalty is assessed if the infraction is discovered while being violated.

Would be nice if we could figure out a way to wave off the basket too, but.......

Hey, Mark, you must have seem my college intramural team play. We won not one, but TWO games using this illegal play. Since most intramural refs aren't top-notch we got away with it.
Looking back, I don't feel good that we did it. Young immature college kids.