Game Over or Foul?

[FVB58]

Fed Rules. Team A behind by one point. Two-tenths of a second left on the clock. Ball is inbounded to A1 and caught with two hands. A1 attempts a try and is fouled immediately and before clock expires.

The debate is not over a try or a tap with less than three-tenths of second. That is understood. Is the shooter still protected on a try even though the try would be disallowed?

Bob J. would you please chime in on this one?


BP

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by FVB58
Fed Rules. Team A behind by one point. Two-tenths of a second left on the clock. Ball is inbounded to A1 and caught with two hands. A1 attempts a try and is fouled immediately and before clock expires.

The debate is not over a try or a tap with less than three-tenths of second. That is understood. Is the shooter still protected on a try even though the try would be disallowed?

Bob J. would you please chime in on this one?


BP

It's a common foul, or, possibly, an intentional personal foul. This falls under the Department of Tautology. By definition, the player with the ball is not shooting. See 5.2.5 SITUATION C for details.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by FVB58
Fed Rules. Team A behind by one point. Two-tenths of a second left on the clock. Ball is inbounded to A1 and caught with two hands. A1 attempts a try and is fouled immediately and before clock expires.

The debate is not over a try or a tap with less than three-tenths of second. That is understood. Is the shooter still protected on a try even though the try would be disallowed?

Bob J. would you please chime in on this one?

Jeff is correct. Since a try is not possible, the act of shooting does not occur.

[Texas Aggie]

If A1 "gains control", then the ball game is essentially over since he can not "gain control of the ball and try for a goal." Unless you rule it intentional, don't call the foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
If A1 "gains control", then the ball game is essentially over since he can not "gain control of the ball and try for a goal." Unless you rule it intentional, don't call the foul.

I think that this is poor advice. The rules clearly instruct the official to call and penalize this common foul which happened before the quarter ending horn sounded.
Just because the player can't legally catch and shoot, doesn't mean that the opponent should be allowed to foul him without penalty.
Call the nonshooting foul and award the bonus if necessary.

[Ref Daddy]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I think that this is poor advice. The rules clearly instruct the official to call and penalize this common foul which happened before the quarter ending horn sounded.
Just because the player can't legally catch and shoot, doesn't mean that the opponent should be allowed to foul him without penalty.
Call the nonshooting foul and award the bonus if necessary.

Agreed

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by FVB58
Fed Rules. Team A behind by one point. Two-tenths of a second left on the clock. Ball is inbounded to A1 and caught with two hands. A1 attempts a try and is fouled immediately and before clock expires.

The debate is not over a try or a tap with less than three-tenths of second. That is understood. Is the shooter still protected on a try even though the try would be disallowed?

Bob J. would you please chime in on this one?


BP

You can't ahve a "Shooting foul" on this play (given that A1 catches the ball).

NCAA says that the game is over and any foul other than I or F is ignored (4-67.5, AR 45). I don't recall a similar play in the FED case book (but I don't have it handy to check), but the ruling makes sense to me. Once A1 catches the ball, there's no way to have a try, so no "common foul" will interfere with normal offensive or defensive maneuvers. (A foul before A1 catches the ball could be a common foul.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

You can't ahve a "Shooting foul" on this play (given that A1 catches the ball).

NCAA says that the game is over and any foul other than I or F is ignored (4-67.5, AR 45). I don't recall a similar play in the FED case book (but I don't have it handy to check), but the ruling makes sense to me. Once A1 catches the ball, there's no way to have a try, so no "common foul" will interfere with normal offensive or defensive maneuvers. (A foul before A1 catches the ball could be a common foul.)

...unless you consider the possibility that A1 reflexively caught the ball when he realized he was going to get fouled but may have otherwise tapped the ball. I think it is unfair to a potential tapper to be expected to avoid catching the ball when a defender is about to crash into him.

[FVB58]

Thanks for the input guys. Fed case 5.2.5 C. answers the question. The other questions proposed are interesting.

[JugglingReferee]

Call it if only it puts a guy on the line to prevent overtime.

[ronny mulkey]

bob,

Are you saying that you can't call a non-shooting common foul after the player has caught the ball?

mulk

Originally posted by bob jenkins

You can't ahve a "Shooting foul" on this play (given that A1 catches the ball).

NCAA says that the game is over and any foul other than I or F is ignored (4-67.5, AR 45). I don't recall a similar play in the FED case book (but I don't have it handy to check), but the ruling makes sense to me. Once A1 catches the ball, there's no way to have a try, so no "common foul" will interfere with normal offensive or defensive maneuvers. (A foul before A1 catches the ball could be a common foul.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
bob,

Are you saying that you can't call a non-shooting common foul after the player has caught the ball?

mulk

In an NCAA game, yes.

In a FED game, you can, apparently, call a non-shooting common foul, according to the case cited above.

[Texas Aggie]

>>The rules clearly instruct the official to call and penalize this common foul <<

The rules are in place to provide a balance of play and if there is an advantage gained by illegal activity, it should be called. Otherwise, though there might be one or more exceptions -- it shouldn't be called.

Please explain the advantage Team B gained by the contact.

[Nevadaref]

In situations in which a legitimate foul has occurred the ruling has been made for us by the governing body of each level of play. We don't get to use our individual judgment for ad/disad.

When you are working an NCAA game, don't call a foul here.
When you are working an NFHS game, you are required to penalize that foul.

Now that is for a play in which the defender clearly whacks the offensive player after the catch, but before the horn/light.



On the other hand, if you wish to discuss the level of contact that would meet your threshold for a foul on this type of play, then that is different and ad/disad could very well factor into that. Perhaps your threshold is different at this point in the game?

My advice would be to try to remain consistent with the level of contact that you have allowed or penalized throughout the entire contest. I'm not going to let someone smack someone else without punishment just because there is a tiny bit of time left on the clock. Nothing good can come from allowing players free reign to take cracks at each other. JMO

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie


Please explain the advantage Team B gained by the contact.

If you really want an answer to this, I can come up with the following:
1. Team B angers the Team A player by fouling him and having it go unpunished. The Team A player being upset doesn't play well in the extra period or loses his cool and does something silly, which does get penalized.
2. Team B is able to injure the Team A player, let's say their best player, somehow (dislocated finger, lands awkwardly on his ankle or foot, etc.) and he is unable to participate further in the contest.