A few more questions...
 

IN my previous queston, I will explain what happened. A Players was recorded in the official scorebook. He did not show up for the game until the beginning of the 2nd half. The coach on the other team said that since he showed up late he is allowed to play but the team is chareged a technical foul as a result of him showing up late. is this correct.

Also could some one explain the difference between an intentional, flagragrant and technical flagrant and the penalities for each. I am a little confused on this.

Thanks so much.

If the player is in the scorebook, it doesn't matter when they show up. They can play with no penalty.

An intentional personal foul is a live ball foul. You need to read the intentional foul section in the NFHS rule book because there is more to it than a foul that is "on purpose." The offended team gets two foul shots plus a throw-in at the spot nearest the foul.

A flagrant foul is any foul that warrants an ejection from the game. It can be personal (live ball) or technical (dead ball) and the player is ejected from the game (to the bench under the supervision of the coach). Two free throws plus a throw-in. Throw-in at the spot nearest the foul if personal. Throw-in at halfcourt if technical.

Read rule 4-19 (foul). There is just too much to type to explain it all. It will make more sense to you when you read that rule.

Z

I'll only add that a flagrant technical could happen during live ball. If a player, following a no-call that he is particularly upset about, he turns to you and makes a few comments about your Mom's procreational habits, it's likely a flagrant technical during a live ball.

I think the distinction is contact during a dead ball that is intentional or flagrant is a technical foul. But that doesn't mean that a technical foul implies a dead ball (on a flagrant foul), as Snag's example illustrates.

Remember to keep personal and technical fouls separate. Personal fouls always involve contact, while technical fouls may or may not involve contact.

Oh?

It's a "T" even if the intentional or flagrant contact is on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead?

See rule 4-19-1 and 4-19-5(c)......

Contact by or on an airborne shooter during a dead ball?:confused:

Ways the ball could be dead while a shooter is airborne:
1. legal block
2. lousy shot that will obviously miss
3. really, really good hang time :)

The ball becomes dead after a blocked shot? :confused:

The ball becomes dead on an unsuccessful field goal attempt :confused:

How about when the ball passes through the net after a dunk? ;)

My bad Chuck - I'm confusing "end of shot attempt" with "dead ball". I guess if a shot is block [end of shot] and a foul occurs away from the shooter [dead ball] then the shooter is fouled as well, that is a dead ball foul on an airborne shooter. The foul after a dunk sounds good!

Why is the foul on the airborne shooter a dead ball foul? :confused:

Neither a blocked shot nor a foul away from the shooter will cause the ball to become dead if those acts occur <b>before</b> the airborne shooter is fouled. NFHS rule 6-7-7EXCEPTION.

Hmmm, ok how about:
1. A1 goes airborne and releases the shot
2. B1 hits the ball into the stands with his/her fist [9-4]
3. Now the ball is dead, the shooter is in the air and a foul could occur.
...the wording (Rule 4-19-1)A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead. has to be in the rule book for something valid (doesn't it?)!

That's a whole bunch of hang time.....:)

Don't overthink the play. Just as Chuck pointed out, the ball is dead as soon as a goal is scored-rule 6-7-1. All contact fouls during a dead ball are ignored unless the contact is judged intentional or flagrant. If you judge the dead-ball contact intentional or flagrant, you have to call an intentional or flagrant technical foul, as per 4-19-5(c). There is only <b>one</b> exception to the preceding, and that exception is contact on an airborne shooter. Contact on an airborne shooter after the ball becomes dead is treated as if that contact occurred during a live ball; iow it's a personal foul- and it's one FT if the shot went in or 2 FT's if the shot misses.

That's why the exception is in the book. Make sense now?

Question 2. If a players number is recorded in the score book and the player allowed to enter the game at anytime without a penalty to that team?

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005

Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

You should put this on your list of Most Misunderstood Rules. IAABO very obviously does NOT understand this rule. The IAABO answer above is <b>wrong</b>.

I resemble that remark and demand an immediate recension of any apology! :)
...sounds to me like whoever crafted in that wording was thinking a bit hard as well.

I say it is. 4-19-5-c that says: (a technical foul is)

I don't believe the rules committee intended to exempt flagrant or intentional contact by the AS (or on the AS), but rather meant to exempt contact that is not intentional or flagrant, but happened during a dead ball.

I do, however, agree that the way the rule is written allows differing opinions. And I don't think it will happen very often (I've never seen what I would rule intentional contact by an AS or on an AS), I will call an AS, for example, who forcefully uses his hand to the face of an opponent for no reason as an intentional or flagrant foul if it meets the requirements of those rules otherwise.

I think that you should read rule R4-19-1, which says <b>"a personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead"</b>. The NOTE following further defines how the FED wants the play called. You <b>ignore</b> the contact by or on the airborne shooter unless such contact is intentional or flagrant. That's pretty straight-forward and definitive rules language imo.

You're wrong in calling this particular foul as being a technical foul, and calling this play according to your interpretation could possibly be a factor in a game. Giving a defender a "T" for intentional contact on an airborne shooter when the ball was dead instead of giving him the intentional personal foul that the rule calls for could possibly mean the ejection of that player for getting a second technical foul.

But the rule doesn't exempt the defender in that scenario, thus a T would be proper even under your reading. Read the rule again. It says, "intentional or flagrant contact foule while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter," not "by or on an aiborne shooter" as article 1 reads.

Again, I don't believe the committee intented to 1) make a distinction between intentional or flagrant contact on or against an AS and 2) insert the last phrase in 4-19-5-c to exempt dead ball intentional or flagrant contact from being a T under that condition, but rather to make it clear that contact against an AS was to be ignored unless intentional or flagrant.

I disagree.

I also give up.

This, I have never heard... then why stay with the airborne shooter until they return to the court? If a defender contacts the AS, then that's [most likely] a foul - without it being intentional or flagrant. It's difficult to understand how the ball can be dead while the shooter is airborne, but not difficult to understand why contact with an AS should be called a foul. :confused:

Are you both saying to ignore contact on an airborne shooter unless the contact is intentional or flagrant? :confused:
4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting."
See also 4.1.1 - the contact on the AS is neither intentional nor flagrant but is still a foul.

JK, read 4-19-1NOTE. We're talking about contact on the airborne shooter <b>after</b> the ball is dead.

Lah me......

Ok, I was reading with the hope of understanding what situations could fall under the category of "dead ball, airborne shooter" and the dialogue at the time seemed to have left that context. After re-reading the dialogue between you two, the main point of contention seems to be whether or not a personal foul can be called during a dead ball if that foul is on an AS or if any such foul would have to be either intentional or flagrant.

I think 4-19-1 reads pretty clearly to say that until the shooter returns to the court, personal fouls apply - even if the ball is dead. I still can't imagine reasonable scenarios in which the ball would be dead and the shooter still airborne... another day!

1. Dunk; ball is dead when it passes through the net; shooter is undercut on the way back to the floor.

2. A1 jumps and shoots; A2 excessively swings elbows without making contact; ball becomes dead immediately; B1 fouls A2. (Less reasonable, but possible.)

If the shot is blocked, the ball's not dead. The ball is only dead as it falls through the net. So if the shot is blocked, there's no dead ball foul an an airborne shooter is there? What am I missing here?

There was a blocked shot (ball remains live) followed by a foul on other than the shooter (ball becomes dead) followed by a foul on the airborne shooter (dead ball personal foul).