Grasping rim then dunking

[just another ref]

I may be wrong, (again) but I believe that there has been a similar discussion before, something to the effect: 9-2 Penalties 1. .......first violation ........shall result in a team warning......

Penalty: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation.....occurs.

Question: The ball became dead when the opponent penetrated the plane, so how can there be a foul?

Answer: (written in just another ref-eeze, may require translation) One infraction trumps the other. When two things happen at about the same time, or one thing happens that can be described in two different ways, (such as a flagrant/intentional foul....if it's flagrant, it matters not whether it was intentional) in most cases you go with the more serious penalty. I'm sure there are exceptions, and somebody will name one right away, but this is one of many small cornerstones in my slightly askew universe.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I may be wrong, (again) but I believe that there has been a similar discussion before, something to the effect: 9-2 Penalties 1. .......first violation ........shall result in a team warning......

Penalty: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation.....occurs.

Question: The ball became dead when the opponent penetrated the plane, so how can there be a foul?

Answer: (written in just another ref-eeze, may require translation) One infraction trumps the other.

Unfortunately, there's also a second answer as to how there can be a foul during a dead ball. Rule 4-19-1NOTE says that you can call an intentional personal foul for contact after the ball becomes dead. And that's basically what 9-2PENALTY4 is telling us to do.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
I may be wrong, (again) but I believe that there has been a similar discussion before, something to the effect: 9-2 Penalties 1. .......first violation ........shall result in a team warning......

Penalty: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation.....occurs.

Question: The ball became dead when the opponent penetrated the plane, so how can there be a foul?

Answer: (written in just another ref-eeze, may require translation) One infraction trumps the other.
__________________________________________________ _____________


Unfortunately, there's also a second answer as to how there can be a foul during a dead ball. Rule 4-19-1NOTE says that you can call an intentional personal foul for contact after the ball becomes dead. And that's basically what 9-2PENALTY4 is telling us to do.
Unfortunately, there's also a second answer as to how there can be a foul during a dead ball. Rule 4-19-1NOTE says that you can call an intentional personal foul for contact after the ball becomes dead. And that's basically what 9-2PENALTY4 is telling us to do.

But this is a hypothetical situation. (rainmaker & I can't imagine a world without them) A1 has the ball OOB for a throw-in. B1 is on the line defending. He takes a swipe with the right hand, penetrating the plane. Not at the same time, but immediately afterward, he swipes with the left hand, penetrates the plane, and contacts A1's arm. In this case, the violation caused the ball to become dead, so there is no foul unless the contact itself was deemed worthy of an intentional or flagrant call.
If it all was done with a single swipe, hypothetically you still have two calls that could have been made. Let's say it was a reeeeeeally slow swipe. Hand penetrates the plane. Whistle blows. Violation. Warning to be recorded on Team B. Meanwhile hand has continued through the air and slaps A1's arm. Whistle is still blowing. Warning is instantly out the window (nobody knew it was there) because it was trumped by the foul.

I rest my case.

[Nevadaref]

You have heard, "See the whole play," right? This is one of those cases. The defender is penalized for the entirety of his actions, not just the first infraction committed.

Counterexample: If defender B1 swings with his left hand in an attempt to block a shot, but commits a goaltending violation. We all know that the ball becomes dead at this point. However, while still in the air, he follows this by swinging his right hand in frustration and intentionally slaps the backboard. This action is clearly worthy of a technical foul. Can we agree that most quality officials are going to call both the violation and the technical foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Counterexample: If defender B1 swings with his left hand in an attempt to block a shot, but commits a goaltending violation. We all know that the ball becomes dead at this point. However, while still in the air, he follows this by swinging his right hand in frustration and intentionally slaps the backboard. This action is clearly worthy of a technical foul. Can we agree that most quality officials are going to call both the violation and the technical foul?

The basis for this technical foul is?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The basis for this technical foul is?

10-3-5b

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You have heard, "See the whole play," right? This is one of those cases. The defender is penalized for the entirety of his actions, not just the first infraction committed.

Counterexample: If defender B1 swings with his left hand in an attempt to block a shot, but commits a goaltending violation. We all know that the ball becomes dead at this point. However, while still in the air, he follows this by swinging his right hand in frustration and intentionally slaps the backboard. This action is clearly worthy of a technical foul. Can we agree that most quality officials are going to call both the violation and the technical foul?

Before we agree to anything let me get this straight -

B1 leaps, blocks a shot with his left hand, hears the whistle for GT, gets mad & slaps the backboard with his right hand. All without returning to earth.

Sounds like something you might see in a Bruce Lee movie.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Before we agree to anything let me get this straight -

B1 leaps, blocks a shot with his left hand, hears the whistle for GT, gets mad & slaps the backboard with his right hand. All without returning to earth.

Sounds like something you might see in a Bruce Lee movie.

Hang time?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hang time?

Hmmm...you might have a point.

[just another ref]

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
The basis for this technical foul is?

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

10-3-5b

10-3-5b: Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard......while a try or tap is in flight.....

The ball is dead in the situation. There is no longer a try in flight.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

10-3-5b: Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard......while a try or tap is in flight.....

The ball is dead in the situation. There is no longer a try in flight.

Your edit distorts the rule, I think. It's illegal to intentionally slap or strike the backboard. It's also illegal to cause the ring to vibrate while the shot is in the air or in the cylinder or on the rim.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hang time?

Nope. Bruce Lee was Chinese. It's Hang Hi.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Your edit distorts the rule, I think. It's illegal to intentionally slap or strike the backboard. It's also illegal to cause the ring to vibrate while the shot is in the air or in the cylinder or on the rim.

10-3-5b: Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

There's the complete rule. After the violation the ball is dead. The only way slapping the board is a technical is if you think it is an unacceptable display of temper/bad sportsmanship/whatever. I don't see it any different than slapping the wall or the floor. (I can do both of these. I'm kinda shaky on slapping the backboard.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

10-3-5b: Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket.

There's the complete rule. After the violation the ball is dead. The only way slapping the board is a technical is if you think it is an unacceptable display of temper/bad sportsmanship/whatever. I don't see it any different than slapping the wall or the floor. (I can do both of these. I'm kinda shaky on slapping the backboard.)

Good point.

Case book play 10.3.5 says that you may call the "T" if you felt that the backboard slap was intentional and it was done to draw attention or vent frustration. Judgment call iow.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Good point.

Case book play 10.3.5 says that you may call the "T" if you felt that the backboard slap was intentional and it was done to draw attention or vent frustration. Judgment call iow.

Judgement call you say???!

But Rod Serling (aka Nevadaref) told us this is a clear, by the book T that requires no judgement at all and MUST be called!

You're not saying he's wrong, are ya??