The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   YOU make the call (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/41548-you-make-call.html)

Terrapins Fan Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:31pm

YOU make the call
 
Watch the video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15GLJ...eature=related

What do you have?

rngrck Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:40pm

Flagrant foul and ejection.

Mark Padgett Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:42pm

What do you mean? The official is calling a technical foul on a coach. Are you asking if he should also call a foul on the player who hit the shooter after the technical was called?

rgncjn Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:43pm

It does appear the defender was attempting to block the shot. However, it does appear the defender stuck his knee into the danger zone of the shooter. Based on that conclusion, I think I would be inclined to call a flagrant personal foul... based on the wording in the rulebook, "if personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing."

Additional information could not hurt, such as, whether or not this player has been causing trouble or playing dirty the entire contest.

Regardless, I feel obligated to call a flagrant personal foul.

JugglingReferee Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan
Watch the video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15GLJyUIoPU

What do you have?

FIBA's definitions of when fouls may happen are slightly different than Fed. I have the T against the coach, and a disqualifying foul against B1.

bigdog5142 Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:51pm

T against the coach, and AT LEAST intentional against the player if not flagrant...I lean toward flagrant.

Mark Padgett Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgncjn
Based on that conclusion, I think I would be inclined to call a flagrant personal foul...

The referee's whistle in this case made the ball dead before the contact occurred (different than calling a shooting foul). You could have a flagrant foul, but it would be a technical for contact of a flagrant nature during a dead ball. The only difference would be that any player could then shoot the free throws and that the ball would then be inbounded at the division line.

rngrck Fri Feb 01, 2008 03:58pm

I may be way out on this one, but it almost looks like the coach was trying to distract the ref from seeing this contact. Heads up to the ref for staying with the play while calling the T.

bigdog5142 Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
The referee's whistle in this case made the ball dead before the contact occurred (different than calling a shooting foul). You could have a flagrant foul, but it would be a technical for contact of a flagrant nature during a dead ball. The only difference would be that any player could then shoot the free throws and that the ball would then be inbounded at the division line.

'Course...you're right that it was a dead ball...so it would have to be a flagrant tech or just a tech.

rainmaker Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
The referee's whistle in this case made the ball dead before the contact occurred (different than calling a shooting foul). You could have a flagrant foul, but it would be a technical for contact of a flagrant nature during a dead ball. The only difference would be that any player could then shoot the free throws and that the ball would then be inbounded at the division line.

I don't know, Mark. I think the whistle is close enough to the contact that you'd be hard pressed to pull that off.

I don't think the defender was going for the ball. His hands were never even remotely straight up. He aimed for the body, pure and simple.

I wish I knew what the coach was saying!

Scrapper1 Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
The referee's whistle in this case made the ball dead before the contact occurred

Interesting. The shooter had obviously started the motion when the whistle was blown. But since the foul is against the coach and not a defensive player, the ball becomes dead immediately?

4-11-1 says that continuous motion does not apply unless a defensive player commits a foul, blah blah blah.

But 4-11-2 says "opponent", not necessarily a player. And 6-7, exception C also says "opponent".

So does the T by the defensive coach cause the ball to become dead? :confused:

rainmaker Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Interesting. The shooter had obviously started the motion when the whistle was blown. But since the foul is against the coach and not a defensive player, the ball becomes dead immediately?

4-11-1 says that continuous motion does not apply unless a defensive player commits a foul, blah blah blah.

But 4-11-2 says "opponent", not necessarily a player. And 6-7, exception C also says "opponent".

So does the T by the defensive coach cause the ball to become dead? :confused:

do we know for sure that it is the defensive coach?

Mark Padgett Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainmaker
do we know for sure that it is the defensive coach?

Juulie - since it looks to me like the T came before the player foul, it wouldn't make a difference.

mcdanrd Fri Feb 01, 2008 05:44pm

How about a False Double Foul with both the technical on the coach and an intentional (which is what the official called) on the player being penalized? It appears to me that the whistle for the T was too late to stop any action by the player.

Mark Padgett Fri Feb 01, 2008 05:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdanrd
How about a False Double Foul with both the technical on the coach and an intentional (which is what the official called) on the player being penalized? It appears to me that the whistle for the T was too late to stop any action by the player.

How do you know what the official called on the player? Not being rude, just curious.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1