Here is the Tenn/Virginia Play

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I only watched it once, but it looked to me like there was an offensive player directly beneath him.

Again, why is he grasped the rim to begin with? There's no shot, he just jumps up and grabs the rim. That's a T, period. If he doesn't grasp the rim, there's no reason to hang on to prevent injury.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Again, why is he grasped the rim to begin with?

Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.

I agree. 147%.

[tmp44]

Assume for argument's sake that, by rule, we should have had a technical called once he made the play on the ball while still grasping the rim. Is it possible that the officials here were under the same mindset as the Oden non-intentional? i.e., let the players decide the game?

For the record, I'm not advocating this position, just merely throwing it out there to try to get a better understanding....

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by tmp44

Is it possible that the officials here were under the same mindset as the Oden non-intentional? i.e., let the players decide the game?

A player commits an intentional foul or a technical foul... that means the player made his/her contribution towards deciding the game - to not assess the foul means you are preventing the player from "deciding the game", imo.

[biz]

Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by biz

Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.

I don't think you can get away with two separate fouls here. I think it's gotta be one or the other.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by biz

Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.

Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

[biz]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

I haven't seen NC's play. What's the thread title?

If you delay the whistle on the T for grasping the rim then the ball is not dead and you don't have to call the intentional T for dead ball contact.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by biz

I haven't seen NC's play. What's the thread title?

If you delay the whistle on the T for grasping the rim then the ball is not dead and you don't have to call the intentional T for dead ball contact.

"False Double Foul with Held Whistle"
False Double Foul with Held Whistle

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by tomegun

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah - not sure what I was thinking. It basically is the same thing, and I would call both the same - personal foul on the player who earned the personal foul and a technical on the guy hanging on the rim. I definately overcomplicated it.

[Old School]

Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim, automatic dead ball, then we have another technical foul for contact on a dead ball after the fact. Or you can say, the player held on or used the rim as an advantage to play defense. That's two technicals, players ejected.

I guess you could reason that contact after the ball is dead is to be ignored unless it's flagrant or intentional. Another example of why you have the referee's judgment to go along with the rule. The correct call is one technical and the ball is dead. New 35 second shot clock after the 2 free throws.

BTW, what was the call here?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.

Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

(I was watching the game too)

While from your view, it may have been clear that there was no one immediately there or that his momentum would have carried him safely away, can you say that he knew that? Is it possible that with all the bodies converging towards the bucket, he felt there was someone there? Or that the ref felt there were others sufficiently close to justify no T?

I simply didn't think it was "obvious". Possible, yes. But not "obvious'.