Please Help!

[golfman]

I was watching a game last week and here is what I seen happen. What would the correct procedure be?

Team A player is dribbling the ball towards his basket when team B player fouls team A player. The team A player who got fouled takes exception to the foul and turns around and taunts the team B player who fouled him. Team B player immediately gets in his face and taunts him right back. Neither player is ejected. The official who called the original foul on team B player then immediatly calls a double technical foul on both players for taunting eachother. Both teams are in the double bonus when all of this occurs.

The calling official then goes to the table to report the first foul on team B for reaching in then reports the double technical foul on team A and B. What will the correct procedure then be for administering all of this? I can't find this particular play in the case book.

[Mark Padgett]

The fouls are administered in the order in which they happened. No free throws on the double technical.

BTW - I bet the official didn't report a "reaching in" foul, since there is no such thing.

[BillyMac]

I'll give it a shot:

If the double technicals are deemed flagrant: Both players are ejected. Team A player's substitute will shoot the double bonus free throws with players lined up along the lane lines because the double techncials offset each other and we're continuing the game from the point of interuption.

If the double technicals are deemed not to be flagrant: Same as above, except the Team A player who was fouled will shoot the double bonus, unless the technical he, or she, received as "half" of the double technical was his, or her, fifth foul, in which case, see above.

The fact that the word "taunt" was used, leads me to believe that the double technical fouls were flagrant. If you're not planning on ejecting the players, in Connecticut they would have to sit out the next game for a flagrant foul, then use the word "unsporting" instead of "taunting".

How did I do without openng my book? Not that I have to ask for a critique on this Forum. I'm sure that my post would have been critiqued without me asking.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I bet the official didn't report a "reaching in" foul, since there is no such thing.

The original post said "B player reaches in trying to steal the ball and fouls team A player", implying two separate acts, the reach in, legal, and the foul, illegal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I bet the official didn't report a "reaching in" foul, since there is no such thing.

A long time ago, on the Forum, I made statements that "over the back" and "reaching in" are not in the rule book. A Forum member corrected me, and said that "reaching in" is mentioned in the rule book, or case book, but, of course, not as a foul.

I can't find "reaching in" in the rule book or casebook. I know it's there lurking somewhere. Where????

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A long time ago, on the Forum, I made statements that "over the back" and "reaching in" are not in the rule book. A Forum member corrected me, and said that "reaching in" is mentioned in the rule book, or case book, but, of course, not as a foul.

I can't find "reaching in" in the rule book or casebook. I know it's there lurking somewhere. Where????

Rule Book 4.23.2 states - It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

It ain't reaching in, but it references the "myth."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Rule Book 4.23.2 states - It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

Thanks. So there is, according to the NFHS, something called a "reach", but it's not illegal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The fact that the word "taunt" was used, leads me to believe that the double technical fouls were flagrant. If you're not planning on ejecting the players, in Connecticut they would have to sit out the next game for a flagrant foul, then use the word "unsporting" instead of "taunting".

My guess, based on the two posts from golfman, is that s/he's not an official.

Besides which, "taunting" is one type of "unsporting" foul (10-3-7 from '06-07 book).

I'm not saying CT can't treat it as an automatic flagrant, but that's not what is in the FED book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"Taunting" is one type of "unsporting" foul (10-3-7 from '06-07 book). I'm not saying CT can't treat it as an automatic flagrant, but that's not what is in the FED book.

Sorry if I wasn't very clear. Connecticut does not treat taunting as an automatic flagrant foul, but it does treat a flagrant foul as an automatic ejection for the next game, as well as what's remaining of the current game.

Also, I was referring to 4-18 Fighting, which seems to draw together unsporting acts, such as taunting, with fighting, especialy when we move into 10-3, and 10-4. Specifically, a taunt that instigates some type of retaliation, is a fight, defined by 4-18, and a fight, by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant.

Here in Connecticut, we have no problem calling flagrant fouls, but we're always careful to remember that the call will have ramifications beyond our game. If we use the verbiage taunt, it might also, and very often, include verbiage involving the word fight, which by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant. If we use the word unsporting, we can, if we chose, slide around the word fight, and simply give technical fouls that have a harsh penalty within that game; if not foul shots due to offsetting, then we will have fouls that count toward disqualification, and fouls that will count toward the bonus, or double bonus.

I try to stay away from the word taunt word unless I believe that the act is so unacceptabe that, besides the penalties that would occur in my game, the player will sit out the next game, this season, post season, or next season.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry if I wasn't very clear. Connecticut does not treat taunting as an automatic flagrant foul, but it does treat a flagrant foul as an automatic ejection for the next game, as well as what's remaining of the current game.

Also, I was referring to 4-18 Fighting, which seems to draw together unsporting acts, such as taunting, with fighting, especialy when we move into 10-3, and 10-4. Specifically, a taunt that instigates some type of retaliation, is a fight, defined by 4-18, and a fight, by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant.

Here in Connecticut, we have no problem calling flagrant fouls, but we're always careful to remember that the call will have ramifications beyond our game. If we use the verbiage taunt, it might also, and very often, include verbiage involving the word fight, which by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant. If we use the word unsporting, we can, if we chose, slide around the word fight, and simply give technical fouls that have a harsh penalty within that game; if not foul shots due to offsetting, then we will have fouls that count toward disqualification, and fouls that will count toward the bonus, or double bonus.

I try to stay away from the word taunt word unless I believe that the act is so unacceptabe that, besides the penalties that would occur in my game, the player will sit out the next game, this season, post season, or next season.

I still don't understand how taunting equates to flagrant or fighting in the OP's situation. Taunting could be sh!t talking, staring an opponent down, standing over a prone opponent in a intimidating fashion, etc. I've called a few tauting T's but none have involved a fight. However I did call a taunting foul last season and the families of the 2 players got in a fight in stands as I was reporting to the table.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I still don't understand how taunting equates to flagrant or fighting in the OP's situation. Taunting could be sh!t talking, staring an opponent down, standing over a prone opponent in a intimidating fashion, etc. I've called a few tauting T's but none have involved a fight. However I did call a taunting foul last season and the families of the 2 players got in a fight in stands as I was reporting to the table.

You could be right, but reread 4-18. If a taunt causes retaliation by the opponent, the original taunt must, by definition, be treated as part of the fight. The question in my mind is, does the retaliation have to be "physical" as in Article 1, or can it be a similar taunt, as in Article 2?

In any case, one thing that I know for sure, is that if the opponent relaliates with a some physical act, not even making contact, then the original taunt is treated as part of the fight, and according to the Article 9 Penalty in Rule 10, both fouls must be treated as flagrant. No choice by the official.