Grasping rim then dunking

[Nevadaref]

There is a similar ruling by the NFHS which says that only one T should be assessed. When I read this I thought, "What happened to the T for hanging on the rim?" Needless to say, I'm not fond of this ruling, but it is what it is.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 7: Only a few seconds remain in the second quarter. Team A is advancing the ball from backcourt to frontcourt. A1 is driving toward his/her basket and is about to dunk the ball when the horn sounds to end the first half. Shortly after the horn sounds, A1 dunks the ball and hangs on to the rim. RULING: A1 is assessed a technical foul for dunking a dead ball. The foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach. The third quarter begins with Team B being awarded two free throws and the ball at the division line. The alternating-possession arrow is not affected and remains unchanged. (5-6-4; 10-3-4)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a similar ruling by the NFHS which says that only one T should be assessed.

I was trying to find this, but failed. I did, however, come across new 10.3.4E, which could shed some light on our "when does intermission begin?" issue.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I was trying to find this, but failed. I did, however, come across new 10.3.4E, which could shed some light on our "when does intermission begin?" issue.

So could this:
2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 4: The horn sounds to end the third quarter. As the teams are heading to their respective benches, team members A1 and B1 verbally taunt one another. RULING: Double technical foul charged to A1 and B1. During the intermission between quarters, all team members are bench personnel. Both head coaches are indirectly charged with technical fouls and lose their coaching box privileges. Play will resume at the point of interruption, which is an alternating-possession arrow throw-in to begin the fourth quarter. (4-34-2; 10-4-1c Penalty)

[jritchie]

and if the ball is dunked and then the kid does a chin up and slaps the board after that...then you also have two T's, is the kid now ejected! Has anyone ever called Both of these??? i have called one for this action several times, but never both...although could have!

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a similar ruling by the NFHS which says that only one T should be assessed. When I read this I thought, "What happened to the T for hanging on the rim?" Needless to say, I'm not fond of this ruling, but it is what it is.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 7: Only a few seconds remain in the second quarter. Team A is advancing the ball from backcourt to frontcourt. A1 is driving toward his/her basket and is about to dunk the ball when the horn sounds to end the first half. Shortly after the horn sounds, A1 dunks the ball and hangs on to the rim. RULING: A1 is assessed a technical foul for dunking a dead ball. The foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach. The third quarter begins with Team B being awarded two free throws and the ball at the division line. The alternating-possession arrow is not affected and remains unchanged. (5-6-4; 10-3-4)

Might be semantics, Nevada, but the play described by the OP has the guy grasping the rim, and [presumably with the other hand] then dunking. The casebook play has the grasp AFTER the dunk. Wouldn't [at least in NFHS] the grasp be cause for a dead ball on the whistle and the dunk of a dead ball result in two Ts?

[Nevadaref]

I don't think that the order matters. The NFHS rule is that grasping the ring at anytime during the jurisdiction of the officials when it is not to prevent injury is a technical foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a similar ruling by the NFHS which says that only one T should be assessed. When I read this I thought, "What happened to the T for hanging on the rim?" Needless to say, I'm not fond of this ruling, but it is what it is.

So do you view these this as one single act or two separate acts that both require penalizing?

And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So do you view these this as one single act or two separate acts that both require penalizing?

And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes!

They are listed as two separate offenses in the rules book.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They are listed as two separate offenses in the rules book.

Thank you.

New situation.

Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one?

BTW, I'm not setting you up. Some believe that these are two distinct issues and others believe they are penzlized as one act. What do you think?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one?

From wikipedia.com:

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Put me down for the intentional foul only.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Put me down for the intentional foul only.

You're wise beyond your years. You must be a Yankees fan.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

From wikipedia.com:
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?

On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?

It's not, obviously. But unless I get something pretty explicit from the NFHS that says to call both, I think the competing solutions are equal. So I choose the simpler one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Thank you.

New situation.

Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one?

BTW, I'm not setting you up. Some believe that these are two distinct issues and others believe they are penzlized as one act. What do you think?

I saw the other thread on this and it made me think for a while. I happen to agree with you and think that the team should be punished for both acts that it committed. Perhaps that will worry you and make you change your mind!
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFHS issued a ruling with similar logic to the one above regarding dunking a dead ball and then grasping the ring in which they state that only the intentional foul shall be called.
In any event my personal opinion doesn't mean squat when put up against an official NFHS ruling.