Technical?

[ref51087]

Saw this last night in an 35 and over game. About 13 ticks left on the clock in the 4th, Team A is down by 30 points. A inbounds after B scores, and A1 dribbles up to just over half court. He then makes a baseball style "pass" with rocket speed and clobbers his defender about 6 feet in front of him, knocking him back several feet onto his back. Ref calls a T on A1 for unsporting conduct. Without any doubt of A1's intentions to hit B1, I was just wondering if the more politically correct call would have been an intentional or even flagrant intentional. Fairly arbitrary question considering the situation, but just looking for the absolute correct ruling. Thanks

[bob jenkins]

Any of the above are "right", depending on what the ref saw and what had transpired previously.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by ref51087
Saw this last night in an 35 and over game. About 13 ticks left on the clock in the 4th, Team A is down by 30 points. A inbounds after B scores, and A1 dribbles up to just over half court. He then makes a baseball style "pass" with rocket speed and clobbers his defender about 6 feet in front of him, knocking him back several feet onto his back. Ref calls a T on A1 for unsporting conduct. Without any doubt of A1's intentions to hit B1, I was just wondering if the more politically correct call would have been an intentional or even flagrant intentional. Fairly arbitrary question considering the situation, but just looking for the absolute correct ruling. Thanks

Someone made the point to me recently that you can't have an intentional or flagrant personal foul in this kind of action - that a personal foul, defined in 4-19 and elaborated on in 10-6 - appears to involve hands, feets, shoulders, thighs, etc., not action at a distance, e.g., the thrown ball. I was referencing a ball thrown in the face when a player is jumping out of bounds with it.

So this foul would, I believe, have to be an intentional or flagrant technical foul. The functional differences would, obviously, be the spot where the ball would come back into play and the fact that the foul would count against the perp's limit for technicals.

[bradfordwilkins]

Its moments like these where I'm glad for the blowout rule in Intramurals (25 point difference or more within the last 2 minutes of the game and its called off)

[ronny mulkey]

Originally posted by ref51087
Saw this last night in an 35 and over game. About 13 ticks left on the clock in the 4th, Team A is down by 30 points. A inbounds after B scores, and A1 dribbles up to just over half court. He then makes a baseball style "pass" with rocket speed and clobbers his defender about 6 feet in front of him, knocking him back several feet onto his back. Ref calls a T on A1 for unsporting conduct. Without any doubt of A1's intentions to hit B1, I was just wondering if the more politically correct call would have been an intentional or even flagrant intentional. Fairly arbitrary question considering the situation, but just looking for the absolute correct ruling. Thanks

Did A1 clobber him with the passed ball or did A1 pass THEN clobber him with a part of his body?

[ref51087]

Clobbered his defender with the ball...sorry for the miscommunication

[Dribble]

If there's any doubt, you may have to go with a no call. If you know for sure A1 drilled B1 with the ball, then AM is correct...technical or flagrant technical foul. Depending on the league, the flagrant T might also bring upon a suspension (or at least have the league review it), so that could be a good thing.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Dribble
If there's any doubt, you may have to go with a no call. If you know for sure A1 drilled B1 with the ball, then AM is correct...technical or flagrant technical foul. Depending on the league, the flagrant T might also bring upon a suspension (or at least have the league review it), so that could be a good thing.

In a men's rec league that's this kind of a blowout, I wouldn't recommend a no-call. A "T" in this case is as much a game control call as a punishment for the crime. To no-call it would be to invite retaliation from the offended player or his teammates. And they're pretty certain to be sure it was intentional.