Grasping rim then dunking

[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.

[BktBallRef]

"...competing solutions are equal...?"

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

I can't.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

Nope. But I simply don't believe the intent of the rule is penalize twice for basically the same act. Yes, you could read the rules that way. I understand that. But unless I see a case play or clarification from the NFHS, I just don't think that's the way it's supposed to be called.

I realize that we call the intentional foul AND issue the warning if a defender contacts the inbounder before a delay warning has been given. But I don't think that's to penalize 2 acts; I think that's so that we have justification to call the T next time he breaks the plane without contacting anything. He doesn't get a free pass to jump across the plane next time, just because he whacked the inbounder this time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

I can't.

I can. Rule 9-2PENALTY4. T'aint no mention of a technical foul anywhere in there that I can see. One act--->one penalty.

Still going around in circles, aren't we?

[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.

[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?