Blowing whistle...team losing advantage?

[jcurtin]

Another post got me thinking about a situation I haven't seen yet, but figure could likely occur.

The ball is live and Team B has possession in its' frontcourt. A1 steals the ball and has a wide open layup the other way. Before A1 shoots the layup, however, B2, husting down the court, blatantly shoves A2 in the back, causing him to fall.

I imagine the official would need to blow the whistle immediately, as to prevent any further escalation of the situation. But by blowing the whistle, wouldn't you be taking away a easy 2 for Team A, who could get two shots and the ball again - a potential 6 points in one trip?

I believe its a similar situation when a defensive player is injured in the backcourt and the other team has a breakaway the other way... you wouldn't blow the whistle until after the made basket or the defensive team gains possession, I believe.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Joe

[ChuckElias]

If you feel the push behind the play needs to be called, you would probably call an intentional foul, since it was neither a play on the ball nor a legitimate attempt to defend the opponent.

This takes away the lay-up, but gives 2 shots and the ball back to the offended team.

Welcome to the forum!

[hbioteach]

In that situation the offensive player has fallen down. No chance at a layup. At the minimum, int. personal 2 shots and ball or perhaps flagrant int. personal.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by hbioteach
In that situation the offensive player has fallen down. No chance at a layup. At the minimum, int. personal 2 shots and ball or perhaps flagrant int. personal.

True, however, the offensive player who was pushed was not the ball carrier.

There is a specific casebook play that allows you to delay calling a technical when the opposing team has a fast break. Unfortunately, there is no such allowance here for a personal (contact) foul. Also, the ball is dead when the foul occurs (regardless of when the whistle blows), so a delayed whistle won't help here (at least, not by rule).

A1's shot is cancelled (although if it's close, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt), B2 is charged with either an intentional personal or a flagrant personal foul (would have to see the contact to judge it), A2 will get two FT's, and then A will inbound the ball at the spot closest to the foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

True, however, the offensive player who was pushed was not the ball carrier.

There is a specific casebook play that allows you to delay calling a technical when the opposing team has a fast break. Unfortunately, there is no such allowance here for a personal (contact) foul. Also, the ball is dead when the foul occurs (regardless of when the whistle blows), so a delayed whistle won't help here (at least, not by rule).

Couldn't you dub this play "unsportsmanlike" and use the delayed whistle for a technical? I'd be tempted to call it flagrant and toss the kid.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

True, however, the offensive player who was pushed was not the ball carrier.

There is a specific casebook play that allows you to delay calling a technical when the opposing team has a fast break. Unfortunately, there is no such allowance here for a personal (contact) foul. Also, the ball is dead when the foul occurs (regardless of when the whistle blows), so a delayed whistle won't help here (at least, not by rule).

A1's shot is cancelled (although if it's close, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt), B2 is charged with either an intentional personal or a flagrant personal foul (would have to see the contact to judge it), A2 will get two FT's, and then A will inbound the ball at the spot closest to the foul.

I see your point, although you might be taking away an easy scoring opportunity I think you have to whistle the play dead by calling an Intentional Foul to prevent further escalation. There's no gurantee that A1 will make the lay-up and there's a possibility that A2 might retaliate thus causing more problems. By whistling it dead you have an opportunity to get there to prevent further problems. This is just my opinion.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Couldn't you dub this play "unsportsmanlike" and use the delayed whistle for a technical? I'd be tempted to call it flagrant and toss the kid.

It would be a stretch, but I guess you could consider it fighting. Other than that, I think we're stuck with either the intentional personal or flagrant personal foul (live-ball contact).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

As Mark as said in his post, unless, A1 was already in the act of shooting B2's contact with A2 causes the ball to be dead with the contact. Hopefully A1 was real quick going down the court and the official could say that A1 was in the act of shooting when the foul occurred and continuous motion will apply. Then the official only has to determine whether B2's person foul against A2 (remember, this was a contact foul while the ball was live so it has to be a personal foul and not a technical foul) was a common, intentional, or flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

It would be a stretch, but I guess you could consider it fighting. Other than that, I think we're stuck with either the intentional personal or flagrant personal foul (live-ball contact).

Yea, rules-wise, I see your point. Knowing this, I think I'd stretch out the "late whistle" possibility and the "continuous motion" interval until they met in the middle, and then toss the kid. Talk about non-basketball plays!

[referee1225]

I have actually had this play happen in a college camp I was attending and here is what I did. I got in between B2 and A2 waited until A1 finished layup blew my whistle and called the basket good gave B2 an intentional and sent A2 to the line for 2 shots and ball at Point of interuption. After game clinicin told me I got the call right.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Yea, rules-wise, I see your point. Knowing this, I think I'd stretch out the "late whistle" possibility and the "continuous motion" interval until they met in the middle, and then toss the kid. Talk about non-basketball plays!

Amen to that.

Remember - continuous motion "may include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket." (6-7 Exception 4)

Like I said above - I'm giving A1 the full benefit of the doubt. As to ejection, I'd want to see the play myself, but would strongly consider it.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by referee1225
I have actually had this play happen in a college camp I was attending and here is what I did. I got in between B2 and A2 waited until A1 finished layup blew my whistle and called the basket good gave B2 an intentional and sent A2 to the line for 2 shots and ball at Point of interuption. After game clinicin told me I got the call right.

Why PoI? If it's an intentional personal foul, shouldn't A get the ball at the spot nearest the foul?

[SamIAm]

It is correct that the rules don't allow us to double the defender up, personal foul for contact and technical for intent? I have not found any wording that allows that, but there are some rules I am not very familiar with.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by SamIAm
It is correct that the rules don't allow us to double the defender up, personal foul for contact and technical for intent? I have not found any wording that allows that, but there are some rules I am not very familiar with.

Not at all allowed. (Unless there was a personal during the live ball, whistled dead, then a push or confrontation clearly after the ball became dead.)

If it's that severe, you charge B2 with a flagrant personal foul - not with two separate fouls.

[referee1225]

Why PoI? If it's an intentional personal foul, shouldn't A get the ball at the spot nearest the foul?

P.O.I. in this case was the spot nearest where the foul happen. Apologize for the confusion.