This was different. We worked a Girls' make-up on Saturday.
Both games went to the Michigan 40-point mercy rule.

JV game : A shooter shot an air-ball, got her shot, and scored.

V game : One of the jumpers caught the ball.

Two rare occurances in the same day.

mick

And both are covered by rules that the coaches NEVER know. How'd you explain the arrow to him/her? :)

chuck

Chuck,
Funny you should ask.

The arrow was actually set the wrong way initially. The table asked C and he got confused.

At the first dead ball, about 90 seconds later (<i>Thank goodness, it wasn't a possession question !</i>) I (new Trail) was administering the throw-in and noticed the arrow.

I jogged down to Ref (new Lead)and told him. He went to C and told him. C told the table, and then C told the offended Coach.

A couple minutes later as running lead on table side I told the bench, "That's an odd one, per book, Coach."

Brain cramps hurt more than bottles.
mick

All that was missing was a wedgie on a free throw and a defensive violation on an inbound following a score (new rule re: spot).

Try this one I saw about 3 years ago while just waiting for my game: opening jump of overtime - jumper A1 bats ball on jump, jumper B1 catches ball before it hits the floor while at exactly the same time of the catch, A1 throws an elbow into B1's head, B2 then runs over and punches A1, A6 then runs off the bench and punches B2 in retaliation. The refs were able to break it up at that point with no further damage.

See if you can sort out the calls and then I'll tell you what the guys doing the game called. BTW - here's a hint - the elbow was ruled not to be intentional or flagrant.

Easy call.
 

"Hey, Coach! Here's my whistle. I just remembered, I'm at the wrong gym."

Re: Easy call.
 

Good call, mick!!

What a screwed up situation! Here's my guess!
 

We have to decide which occurred first. If the catch occurred first, then we have a violation by B1, A gets the ball and the arrow and the foul by A1 is ignored because the ball was dead when it occurred. Since you said that the contact was ruled to be neither flagrant or intentional, my guess is they ruled the violation came first.

But, just in case, if the foul occurs first, then we ignore the violation by B1 and we have a foul on A1. Are we in the bonus? If we are, the arrow is set to A when the ball is adminstered to B1 for his FT(s).

B2 - Flagrant technical foul and disqualified.
A6 - Two flagrant technical fouls and disqualified.

B will shoot 2 FTs and will get the ball at the division line.

Oh, also, Team's A Head coach is ejected because A6 was bench personnel and A1, B1, and B2 all get ice packs for bloody noses.

Okay, what did they do?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

A1 throws an elbow into B1's head, ... BTW - here's a hint - the elbow was ruled not to be intentional or flagrant.

I guess the words "throws an elbow" implies an intentional act to me. Was it just incidental contact or judged to be a common foul?

Re: What a screwed up situation! Here's my guess!
 

Agree
Disagree. A6 gets only 1 T for leaving the bench and participating in a fight.. It is flagrant and A6 is disqualified. While it is and <em>extended</em> act, it is still a single act.
Since A6 should only get 1 T, there are no FTs (offsetting) and A's Coach has only one indirect T. Even if there were two T's on A6, A's coach would still have only 2 indirect T's and would not be ejected. A coach is only ejected on two direct T's or 3 total T's.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Sep 17th, 2001 at 12:46 PM]

here's some help
 

I'd like to get a little more discussion before revealing what the actual calls were, but BktBallRef makes a great point that is worth highlighting.

He gives two scenarios as to whether the elbow occured before or after the violation. Note that in my original post, I said they happened at exactly the same time. As BktBallRef implies - it is an "unwritten rule" among referees that two things of this nature NEVER happen at exactly the same time! One ALWAYS rules that one event happened a split second before the other.

If you don't think this way, you'd better be ready to alienate both coaches, all the players, your partner and your assignor, plus make life generally miserable for yourself.

Re: Re: Re: What a screwed up situation! Here's my guess!
 

Only one of them has actually occurend. 10-4-1h supercedes 10-4-4. It may not be clear, but that is what is intended.
10.4.4A.
Play: Post-players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped. Two substitutes from each team leave the bench area and come onto the court. The four substitutes: (a) do not become involved in the fight; or (b) all become involved in the fight; or (c) substitutes A6, A7, and B6 do not participate in the fight, but B7 becomes involved in the fight.

Ruling: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double personal foul. The four substitutes are charged with flagrant technical fouls and are disqualified. No free throws are awarded for the simultaneous technical fouls as the number committed and the penalties are the same for both teams. In (a), one technical foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach of each team. In (b), each head coach is charged indirectly with two technical fouls (one for each bench player leaving the bench and becoming involved in the fight). In (c), the Team A head coach is charged indirectly with one technical foul and the Team B head coach is indirectly charged with two technical fouls (one for substitutes B6 and B7 leaving the bench, and one for B7 becoming involved in the fight).
In the case you cite, there were multiple players involved. The coach gets a single indirect T for all players who leave the bench and do not fight. The coach also gets an indirect T for each and every player who leaves the bench and fights. The two categories are non-overlapping...the infraction can only be declared one or the other--not both.

So, in situation (c) in the case, there is one T for B6 and one for B7. Notice that in situation (b) that only 2 were given. By the pattern you've suggested, it should have been 3....one for all players leaving the bench and one for each involved in the fight.

One easy way to remember it...the coach never receives more indirect T's that the number of total T's called on the involved players.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Sep 17th, 2001 at 07:01 PM]

Okay, let's see if I got this right!
 

No wonder no one else would try to figure this out! :)

A coach gets one indirect technical foul if one or ten bench personnel leave the bench.

If three of those ten enter the court and fight, the head coach gets a total ofthree indirect technical fouls, and he would be ejected.

Leaving the bench is one T but <B>every person</B> charged with fighting gets the coach an indrect. I believe I now have this correct. I wish the NF was a little clearer on this or had it summarized somewhere.

You'll have to forgive me because I don't allow fights in my games! :)

Re: Okay, let's see if I got this right!
 

I left the gym hours ago.
You and Camron get Marks blessing, and I'll do whatever you guys say.

I promise.
mick not-enough-pictures-to-read chambers

Personal to Camron and Juulie: this happened at The Hoop in Beaverton where they have a house rule that each technical foul is two shots, possession and two points for the other team - but I left that out of the case because it would have been even more confusing.

Re: Okay, let's see if I got this right!
 

Not quite -- the coach gets one indirect for each of the three that fought, plus one more for all the others who left but didn't fight.

It makes no difference in this particular case -- the coach is gone anyway, but it might make a difference if the numbers were a little different.

Jim Dixon (I think) wrote an interesting summary on these rules a few years ago. I'll try to find it and post it, but a summary is:

1) Players Come off and do NOT fight -- doesn't matter how many, just one indirect. If numbers for both teams are same, they offset. IF numbers aren't the same, shoot two throws.

2) Players come off and DO fight -- One indirect for each player who fights. IF numbers for both teams are same, they offset. If numbers aren't the same, two throws for each one that isn't offset.

3) Coaches leave bench (without being beckoned) -- Flagrant direct on coach -- whether s/he fights or not. IF both coaches leave bench, they offset. If not, shoot two throws.

Always -- people who leave the bench are ejected.

Always -- add one to the team foul total for each person who leaves the bench.

Re: Re: Okay, let's see if I got this right!
 

Understood, just not addressed because he was ejected for the 3 indirect T's.

Yep, you sent it to me but I couldn't put my hands on it during this discussion. I reviewed it during the season last year and plan to again this year. I still have it, just have to locate it.

One more question
 

1) Players Come off and do NOT fight -- doesn't matter how many, just one indirect. If numbers for both teams are same, they offset. IF numbers aren't the same, shoot two throws.


Bob, does this mean that if 3 players come off A's bench, and 2 players come off B's bench, but NOBODY from either bench participates, then B will shoot 2 free throws?

I think that's right, b/c even though only 1 indirect T is assessed to each coach for bench personnel, each of the substitutes from the bench gets a direct T. So 3 direct T's on A (plus one indirect on the coach), and only 2 direct T's on B (plus one indirect on the coach). Therefore, 2 free throws for B.

Is the above scenario changed if Team B has more players that actually participate in the fight? Say all the above remains true AND B1 and B2 punch A1 who also punches B1.

Now it seems that all the direct T's even out. Would we still shoot anything?


3) Coaches leave bench (without being beckoned) -- Flagrant direct on coach -- whether s/he fights or not. IF both coaches leave bench, they offset. If not, shoot two throws.


I was once told that if a coach comes off the bench to break up a fight, there is a 100% chance that he was beckoned, whether anybody saw it or not. Does anybody think that's valid? As long as the coach is breaking things up, you're not going to penalize him/her?

I guess that was more than one more question.

Chuck

Re: One more question
 

Chuck,
I saw you beckon that coach. ;)
That is well within the spirit and intent of the book.
mick

Re: Re: One more question
 

Thanks mick. I thought so. Just checking how other people see it.

Chuck

Re: One more question
 

Right - and it doesn't matter how big the discrepancy is. If 10 from A left and 1 from B left, but noe participated, you'd still have 1 indirect on each coach and B would shoot the throws for one technical (two throws). A would have a lot more team fouls, though.



Let me make sure I've got the scenario straight: A1, A2, A3, B1 and B2 come off the bench. A1, B1 and B2 particpate.

First, determine the fouls by category:

1) A has two off the bench; B has zero off the bench -- B will shoot 2.

2) A has one participate; B has 2 participate -- A will shoot two.

3) N/A

Now, add up the totals and offset. Here, they offset exactly, so no free throws are shot.

Quote:

3) Coaches leave bench (without being beckoned) -- Flagrant direct on coach -- whether s/he fights or not. IF both coaches leave bench, they offset. If not, shoot two throws. I was once told that if a coach comes off the bench to break up a fight, there is a 100% chance that he was beckoned, whether anybody saw it or not. Does anybody think that's valid? As long as the coach is breaking things up, you're not going to penalize him/her?

I agree.

Re: Re: One more question
 

Actually, Bob, in my mind, I was thinking that the players off the benches did not participate in the fight, but that 3 "players" (actually in the game) were fighting. I don't think it matters, tho, it should work out the same, right?

Chuck

Well, except you'd bang the coach if the players came off the bench--whether they participated or not--whereas you wouldn't if it were players on the court.

Re: One more question
 

Hey, that was two questions! :)

Yes, I think that's valid. In fact, I was going to post the same thing. As long as the coach is helpful when he enters the floor, we consider him to be beckoned. If he starts more ****, then he's got to go.