Woof woof T
 

We've mentioned the "barking dog" play here a couple of times as I recall. In the most recent issue of Referee magazine they list a case play in support of a new editorial change:

Unsporting fouls (4-19-14). Clarifies that an unsporting foul can be a noncontact technical foul that involves behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. The rule clarification provides further inclusion for playing action that is unfair, unethical or disonorable.

First of all my understanding all along was that conduct that is unfair, unethical or dishonorable was unsporting. So I'm not sure what it is they're trying to clarify. Maybe I'm just dense.

However, the case play was interesting:

Late in the game, A2 is inbounding the ball on the endline in his or her own frontcourt. In an effort to deceive the other team, A4 lines up near the sideline on his or her hands and knees and begins to simulate a barkng dog. As the team B players turn to look at A4, A2 throws the ball to A5 who makes an uncontested layup. Ruling The official shall stop play, wave off team A's basket and issue an unsporting technical foul to A4. Team B will shoot two free throws and have the ball for a designated-spot throw-in at the division line opposite the table.

Obviously Referee is not an official source of interpretations. So, I put it to you, and I leave it to you (you gotta love Alfred P. Doolittle): Would you call a T for the barking dog play?

maybe on the team that fell for it -- since when did we become the attention police

I'm quite certain that I would be laughing too hard to assess a T.

Z

It seems to me I remember this clarification coming out right after this play was shown on TV (and the internet). I think their clarification was the fact that to most people, someone on their hands and knees barking like a dog is not unsporting in and of itself, unless of course, that player turns around and bites an opponent in the ankle. (Sorry, Chuck, I know I've left the door wide open for comments...), But within the context of the game of basketball, they consider that not a part of the "real" game, so they wanted that considered unsporting. If you let that go, someone, somewhere will come up with another crazy stunt, like hanging from the rafters with a rope and pulley. They just wanted to nip those kinds of stunts in the bud. Nip it, I say.

That said, the first time I saw it I thought it was a great play.

Sounds like one for Chuck to get the NFHS to comment on. I know that certain types of deliberately misleading plays designed to gain an advantage are covered in the FED football rules. As it stands right now, it's strictly a judgement call in basketball, Referee magazine notwithstanding.

As BITS said, please take anything concerning the rules issued by Referee with a grain of salt. They aren't an official source and have made numerous rules mistakes in the past. You got a heckuva lot better chance of getting a correct answer to any question on this forum compared to Referee magazine.

Now you know why Chuck became a referee....
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Comic/Sport/tall.jpg

That is the funniest pic in 6 years I have been here!


(Sorry Chuck)

Oh man - that's cold.

:D

Now to comment - I agree with M&M - they likely wanted to prevent a stream of "stunt" plays in response to the massive international exposure of the "barking dog". I laughed my a** off the first time I saw it - but then thought about it - at what point is one team making a mockery of the game and harming the integrity of the game. A large part of me agrees with DeeCee who says "we're not the attention police". But if the barking dog isn't enough, what is? A player who goes into Jim Carrey mode, throws a spastic fit as a distraction. Or maybe a player fakes collapsing on the floor to draw attention. What about a player who, during a throw-in, whips off his (or her) uniform and stands there naked as a distraction. Is that enough for a T?

Having said all that - when's the last time anyone actually had a stunt like this. Probably never.

Well, this would an obvious T:

On a fast break, A4 beats his only guard B5 and goes for the layup. B5 shouts in the hope that A4 would frighten or distract anyway and miss the shot.

The "barking dog" stuff doesn't seem that much different to me...

:D :D

Maybe a "T" under FIBA rules......but....legal under NFHS and NCAA rules unless the shout was profane or trash-talking. If so, <b>delayed</b> "T" until the shot attempt was over.

:(

You're too weird on the other side of the ocean... :rolleyes:

Is this where the more athletic screeching monkeys go to do their....ah, never mind.

I'm surprised no one brought up the start-the-second-half-throw-in-by-lining-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-court-for-an-easy-layup-play.

Think this is covered in the editorial change?

Hmm...good question. My guess is probably not, because that is still a "game of basketball" play, even though it involves deception. I don't think the committee is against deception, per se, but against things that are outside and not really part of the game. If they were against deception, they would outlaw the pump-fake, wouldn't you think?

hmmmm -- you guys know that basektball isnt golf and complete silence isnt needed? Like JR said unless the yell is profane and its just a loud "SHOT" or "MISS" then if the player misses its his own damn fault for not having any concentration.

I mean if a player can go up against heavy pressure and get fouled and make a tough strong finish how is a yell gonna scare him off. If it does maybe he should be thinkging about how he is going to approach his tee the following moring.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this play, but the deception involved in the wrong-end-of-the-court play is of a different kind, or flavor or degree than a pump fake.

The pump fake is entirely within the spirit of the game, it's offense versus defense and the offense gains an advantage through more clever play. The wrong-end-of-the-court play doesn't pit the offense and defense head-to-head with equal opportunity, it simply uses the confusion that often surrounds an otherwise meaningless artifact of the game (i.e., changing baskets after the half) to potentially earn an uncontested basket. You can argue that the defense is at fault for not being aware, but the two situations just feel different. One is a triumph of clever play and skill over a defender with an equal opportunity, the other is too-clever-by-half manipulation and deception.

I know what you mean; I know I would be uncomfortable standing in between the player doing the throw-in and the rest of the team, so I would probably give it away by pointing the right direction again.

Yes, it's deception, but it is still using things that are part of the game of basketball - running, dribbling, passing, shooting. It's not using some something "external", like sound effects, goats, or whipped creme. :eek: At least that's where I would draw the line.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand my point of view. Goats and whipped creme I'm okay with. :D

Can I get a video of one of your games? :eek:

Or, maybe I can just borrow it from Eddie Griffin.

:D

A defender is supposed to block a shot by defending, not by distracting his opponent(s). Therefore, the shooter will expect a defender to try to block his shot, to steal the ball and sometimes to get fouled. He will not expect anyone to imitate a monkey. Even if the action doesn't have a direct effect upon the shot (and it usually has, anyway), the try itself is a clear (or it is to me at least ;)) example of unsportsmanlike conduct.

We aren't on a golf green, but we aren't in a circus tent either.

Can you please cite a rule- NFHS or NCAA- that will back up that statement?

Officials can't make calls based on their own personal likes and dislikes.

You guys are kidding, right? It's only deception in the way that an iso play is deception. And if the other team is stupid enough to fall for it....

Although, if a team is 50 points ahead and they try this, I gotta admit, I'll interfere. But the only two times I've seen it work, it was the team that was way, way behind that tried it and pulled it off. No way I'm gonna do anything to stop that!

It is not in the spirit and intent of the rules.
I also had a look at the NCAA rulebook and found this:

Rule 10. Fouls and penalties
"[...] Direct technical fouls include, but are not limited to, infractions that are unsporting in nature, such as acts of deceit, and disrespectful or vulgar remarks to officials or opponents."

FIBA also says:
38.1.2 Each team shall do its best to secure victory, but this must be done in the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play.
38.1.3 Any deliberate or repeated non-cooperation or non-compliance with the spirit of this rule shall be considered as a technical foul.

Dude, yelling from someone from behind is not considered an unsporting act under NFHS or NCAA rules, unless what the person actually yells is unsporting by itself- i.e. swearing, trash-talk, etc. Iow, it might be a "T" under FIBA rules, but it sureasheck isn't a "T" over here.

I see, but what about the "woof woof" play then?
It is an "act of deceit", isn't it?

Yup, but that doesn't automatically make it an unsporting act under NFHS and NCAA rules. We're trying to get clarification now, but the general rule of thumb is that if something is not specifically listed as being illegal, it probably is legal until definitively ruled upon.

Let's wait for the new casebook, then ;)

Question for y'all regarding this. I seem to recall that it was a Technical foul if you ran up behind a player attempting a layup and slapped your hands together loudly to distract the player taking the shot. I would class this in the same boat as yelling at them when taking a shot. So am I wrong to think a T is deserved for clapping your hands together in this manner? I have not had to give one out but I have received one when I was in High school and that was like 25 years ago.

Smoke

Well, imo that shouldn't have been called 25 years ago and it also shouldn't be called now- at any level. There has never been a rule, case play or A.R. saying to call that act that I know of- NFHS or NCAA.

Ok thanks. I was told it falls under Unsportsmanlike conduct.

Well, any official has the power to interpret any act as to whether it actually is unsporting or not. NFHS and NCAA rules certainly do acknowledge that.

In a case like this, I think that the best way for anyone to proceed is to talk to your local rules interpreter/evaluator, and try to get some direction from him. If your local guy wants that called, then you certainly should be calling it. Trying to attain uniformity in calls like this, so that players/coaches know what to expect, is paramount. All I can tell you though is, that from my own personal experience, clapping hands or shouting from behind an opponent are <b>not</b> considered as unsporting acts, and anyone making that call might not be considered for higher levels. Again, jmo; take it fwiw.

Guess no more fake passes, head fakes or pump fakes since they're attempts to deceive the defense. ;)

Umph... come on! :p

I disagree. It's deceptive in a different way than an isolation play is deceptive. It just isn't basketball; it's not the way the game is meant to be played. I rather like the terminology the NCAA uses: deceitful.

Rather than being like an isolation play, it's more like the play in football where one wide receiver acts like he's heading off the field, then stops right at the OOB line and turns to face the same direction as his teammates off the field. His ploy is to convince the defense that he's left the field so they don't guard him. It exploits the confusion surrounding an unrelated artifact of the game (in this case players entering and leaving the field between downs) to try and gain an unintended advantage. And, in this case as well, you could argue that the defense should be more aware and not get fooled. Only in football this play is illegal.

You can lump this wrong-end-of-the-floor play in with shouting/clapping at a player going for a layup and the barking dog. None of them are expressly illegal; but all of them just aren't how the game is supposed to be played.

Are we really discussing someone getting down on their hands and knees and barking like a dog? I don't consider this an act of deceit, rather it is an act of foolishness. An act of deceit would be, as someone mentioned, pretending to faint on the court or feining a serious injury, not barking like a dog. If this ridiculous tactic actually works more power to the team that pulls it off, but in effect, the "barking dog" reduces your squad's effectiveness by a player.

Would I T this? Doubtful, unless I deemed that the act was demeaning to the other team in some way, in which case the T may be flagrant. The difference between faking an injury and acting like an idiot is huge, especially given the fact that several players over the last few years have died on the court and it's a serious matter. I think we are being bored and even over officious with this interpretation.

I think for the most part the "game is supposed to be played" how it is being played by the two teams on the court -- sometimes worse than what we are used to sometimes better -- but for the most part its their game who are we to tell them "Hey we dont like someting." If they break the rules fine but to call a player acting like an idiot deceitful is a joke. It doesn't exploit anything because unlike football subs need to be called onto the court by the official. Unlike football players are allowed to be anywhere on the court at any time (for the most part) there is no offsides and running plays from set stances. And unlike football we dont throw flags (dont know what that has to do with it).

By the way why isnt the fake field goal or punt deceitful -- fake and deceit are synonyms but it is what it is -- teams are ready and expecting those so they are prepared -- a player getting on all fours might not be what anyone is expecting but hey no rules have been broken, no team insulted, no one gets hurt and everyone get a good laugh. Yup sounds like a time to drop a T bomb to me...

Statue Of Liberty Play
 

I had a play in a recreational league, senior championship game....check this one out Chuck. Team A has possesion of the ball, in there front court. The score is at 88-88 with two seconds on the clock, in the fourth quarter. As A1 is about to inbounds the ball, his team mates line up alongside each other. A1 then yells out the work 'break' and 3 of his team mates just fall to the floor, as if to faint. Team B's defenders in shock just freeze and there attention is immediately taken to the 3 players that are now laid out on the floor. Then A1 passes the ball to A2 and he makes an uncontestant lay-up. The buzzer sounds and team A wins the championship game, in front of a packed house. Everyone could not believed what they have just witnessed.:D

now i might consider that a T worthy ploy -- the defense was deceived by thinking those 3 players were hurt or injured -- big difference from doing something idiotic like barking and doing something stupid like feigning death...jmo

FWIW, this month's (July's) RefMag has a case play on both the "barking dog" play (unsporting to to the PLAYER who barks) and the "blood on the jersey" rule (NO AMOUNT of blood is allowed).

I know RefMag is not always correct, but these plays were apparetnly vetted by Mary Struckhoff.

Bob - this is where Mr. All-Around Annoying Guy steps in and mentions the fact the original poster referenced the Ref Mag article; that's how this discussion got started.

No problem; anytime. :D