I affected a game I wasn't even working

[Mark Padgett]

When I came on for the start of my never-ending five game shift yesterday, the game before my first one was just ending. When I walked into the gym, there was a timeout with about 10 seconds left and the score was tied. One of the officials came up to me and asked me this question: "If a player was called for an intentional foul for reaching over the boundary and fouling an inbounder earlier in the game, does that also count as the first delay warning, just like if we called a technical for reaching over and hitting the ball?" I said yes. He said thanks.

The next thing I knew, he was explaining something to his partner, then they talked to both coaches. One of the coaches started making a big fuss and telling them they were "wrong" about something.

They then proceeded to have the other team shoot a technical. The shooter made both shots, then his team inbounded and was fouled, made both of a double bonus and then let the other team run the floor and score just as the horn went off.

I found out by talking with the scorer that the officials weren't sure of the call on the delay warning and were discussing it when I came in. He said that if they hadn't asked me, they (in his opinion from listening to their discussion) wouldn't have called the technical for the delay warning.

Boy - that was fun.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

When I came on for the start of my never-ending five game shift yesterday, the game before my first one was just ending. When I walked into the gym, there was a timeout with about 10 seconds left and the score was tied. One of the officials came up to me and asked me this question: "If a player was called for an intentional foul for reaching over the boundary and fouling an inbounder earlier in the game, does that also count as the first delay warning, just like if we called a technical for reaching over and hitting the ball?" I said yes. He said thanks.

The next thing I knew, he was explaining something to his partner, then they talked to both coaches. One of the coaches started making a big fuss and telling them they were "wrong" about something.

They then proceeded to have the other team shoot a technical. The shooter made both shots, then his team inbounded and was fouled, made both of a double bonus and then let the other team run the floor and score just as the horn went off.

I found out by talking with the scorer that the officials weren't sure of the call on the delay warning and were discussing it when I came in. He said that if they hadn't asked me, they (in his opinion from listening to their discussion) wouldn't have called the technical for the delay warning.

Boy - that was fun.

I am slightly confused:

A1 has the ball out-of-bounds for a throw-in. B1, who is defending against A1, reaches through the plan and fouls A1. This is an intentional personal foul. A1 will be awarded two free throws with no players lined up on the free throw lane. Team A will then be awarded a throw-in nearest the spot of B1's intentional foul against A1. If Team B had not been issued an official delay-of-game warning, it will be issued because of B1's intentional personal foul against A1. Even if Team B had previously been issued an official game of delay-of-game warning, Team B will not be charged with a technical foul for a delay-of-game infraction because B1's foul against A1 takes precedence in this play.

Therefore, I am confused as to why a technical foul would be charged to anybody or team in this situation and why technical foul free throws were shot.

It seems to me that the officials did not get it correct.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am slightly confused:

Two separate incidents. First, early in the game, there was an intentional personal for fouling the inbounder. Then, late in the game -- just as Mark entered the gym -- there was a defender who reached through the boundary plane.

Does that help?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am slightly confused:

A1 has the ball out-of-bounds for a throw-in. B1, who is defending against A1, reaches through the plan and fouls A1. This is an intentional personal foul. A1 will be awarded two free throws with no players lined up on the free throw lane. Team A will then be awarded a throw-in nearest the spot of B1's intentional foul against A1. If Team B had not been issued an official delay-of-game warning, it will be issued because of B1's intentional personal foul against A1. Even if Team B had previously been issued an official game of delay-of-game warning, Team B will not be charged with a technical foul for a delay-of-game infraction because B1's foul against A1 takes precedence in this play.

Therefore, I am confused as to why a technical foul would be charged to anybody or team in this situation and why technical foul free throws were shot.

It seems to me that the officials did not get it correct.

MTD, Sr.

You're misinterpreting Mark's post, Mark (hee hee). He helped the officials on a game apply a rule correctly when they weren't sure. That's all you need to understand.

[MadCityRef]

Wow, talk...about ---- ti ---- timing!

[grunewar]

I had the exact opposite occur. Asked my opinion too late..... Course, I ain't Mark either!

Rec league, B13/15. Team A winning in the closing seconds and Team B starts with the intentional fouls. NOT the right kind either. These were non-basketball two handed pushes or blatant holds. Sr. Ref, more experienced than me, rewards 1 and 1 to A. A misses first. B gets ball and scores. A gets ball and again there is intentional foul (two-handed push). A misses first. Refs again award one and one. I'm going crazy inside..... B eventually wins in OT.

Sr Ref comes up and asks what I thought of game. I said, the purpose of the intentional foul rule is to prevent exactly what happened here. He said, yeah, I coulda called it. I was dissappointed, because the Sr Ref thinks he's "all that" and also the coach that lost was my co-coach from last yr....and his team probably would have one if the rule was applied properly.

- I don't think anyone in the gym knew differently.

- Yeah, I know A could have won if they hit their free throws. That's why they're free!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by grunewar

....and his team probably would have one if the rule was applied properly.

Would have had one what?

One victory?

Sounds be your descriptions there should have been a/some INTs called. Did you think about nabbing one of the calls and signalling an intentional foul, or where they all out of your area?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Would have had one what?

One victory?

Sounds be your descriptions there should have been a/some INTs called. Did you think about nabbing one of the calls and signalling an intentional foul, or where they all out of your area?

OK - "won" vs "one".....ya got me....

Similar to JR - I wasn't reffing the game. I was observing. If I was in the game, I certainly would have "nabbed one."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You're misinterpreting Mark's post, Mark (hee hee). He helped the officials on a game apply a rule correctly when they weren't sure. That's all you need to understand.

Juulie:

That may be, but Mark's description of the play doesn't convey that meaning.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Juulie:

That may be, but Mark's description of the play doesn't convey that meaning.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

.... One of the officials came up to me and asked me this question: "If a player was called for an intentional foul .. yadda, yadda, yadda....hitting the ball?"...

I said yes. He said thanks.

The next thing I knew, he was explaining .....

I found out by talking with the scorer that the officials weren't sure of the call ...

.. if they hadn't asked me....

Boy - that was fun.

These are the crucial points in the post, MTD. The rest is just adjectives and adverbs.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Juulie:

That may be, but Mark's description of the play doesn't convey that meaning.

MTD, Sr.

I thought I was clear as Billy Crystal.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I thought I was clear as Billy Crystal.

Dang it Mark, you have to stop posting when you are not taking your meds.

MTD, Sr.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I thought I was clear as Billy Crystal.

You were only Mostly clear.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You were only Mostly clear.

LOL time for a new monitor.