|
Grasping rim then dunking
Last night (NCAA-M rules) I officiated a military intramural game in which I had to issue a technical for A1 slapping the backboard after dunking. This morning while reviewing Indirect Techincals Fouls I came across this in 10-3-13:
A.R. 201. A1 dunks and in so doing grasps the ring with a free hand: (a) before the ball leaves his or her other hand; or (b)... RULING: In (a), A1 shall be assessed with two indirect technical fouls, one for grasping the ring and the other for dunking a dead ball. In (a), no goal shall be scored. In (b)...
|
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) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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) |
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! :)
|
And for anyone who didn't notice, Situation 7 from the 2005-06 Interps which I posted made it into the new case book as the play Bob cited, 10.3.4E.
|
Quote:
Keep up the good work You've got a great future behind you.:D |
Quote:
Actually Bob and I cited the same ruling in the very same minute. Please take another look at the times of posts #2 and #4. You confused that interp from 2005-06 which I cited therein with the one from 2006-07 that I cited in post #8. :p |
Quote:
|
I'm not familiar with the NCAA rulebook, and I was wondering if there is an indirect technical on a player in NCAA? Would the player who dunked the ball and got two Ts be disqualified?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes! :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
NV, you're always here when we don't want your input...where are you now? :D
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate? :eek: |
Quote:
|
"...competing solutions are equal...?" :confused:
Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both? I can't. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Still going around in circles, aren't we? |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.:D |
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? ;) |
Quote:
The basis for this technical foul is? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref The basis for this technical foul is? Quote:
The ball is dead in the situation. There is no longer a try in flight. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.) |
Quote:
Case book play 10.3.5 says that you <b>may</b> 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. |
Quote:
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?? |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20pm. |