At one of our last HS meetings of the year last night, an official brought up a situation which sparked lots of debate...he got it and the interpretation he brought off of the officiating.com website...here it is (as closely as I can remember)..."A4 attempts a dunk and misses. A4 hangs on the rim when there is no danger of injury. While hanging onto the rim with one hand, A4 is able to catch the ball with the other hand and attempts to dunk it again. What is your ruling?"

After much discussion, the ruling that was read - and quoted as a NF ruling - said that this would result in TWO technical fouls being called (even though he never let go of the rim and grabbed it again) and the player being ejected...I am having a hard time with this interpretation...can't find anything in the case book or rule book one way or the other...thought I would get the input of all of you on this board...so???

Rocky,the only thing I can think of is a T for hanging on the rim,followed by a T for dunking a dead ball.They're both covered under 10-whatever(don't have my books).Sure sounds like over-kill to me,though.If that is what they're referring to,I'd probably just go with the initial T.Technically,though,could be 2 T's.

IMO - I think I would choose the first foul and avoid the double T. It appears both fouls are there but I think this all comes down to timing.

The ball is dead for A1 hanging but he doesn't know it because he's busy commiting a second offense thinking the ball is still live. If it's bang-bang, then I would lay off the second (and more spectacular) techincal foul.

I would call both only if I had a timely whistle and the kids stuffs the ball in a clear case of showboating.

As Mark T. DeNucci has shown in his posts about climbing on top of another player and then dunking, this is two T's. Whether I would actually assess two is another story (in NF - tossing a kid for this action).

NCAA does have a clear case, however, stating that this results in two indirect T's.

It will also result in (at least) one T on the coach. ;)

Since the wording in both the NFHS and NCAA rules books are indentical regarding hanging on the rim and dunking a dead ball (excetion for women) and both the NFHS and NCAA use the same logic in deciding when and when not to charge a technical foul for grabbing/hanging on the rim, I think that in the absence of a direct ruling from the NFHS, the NCAA ruling is applicable for games being played under NCAA rules.

Bob, I forgot to add the only time the coach would also be charged with a technical foul for dunking a live ball is when it is done before the game, during half time, between quarters, and timeouts.

Mark, I think Bob knows that. The ;) in his post leads me to think that the coach would receive his (direct) T for howling about the 2 T's on his player; not as an indirect resulting from the dunk.

Chuck

Your right Chuck, I was just trying to be mellow. Yeah, right, me mellow.

Maybe shown to you, but not to me :-)

There are numerous instances in the rules where we only call the one part of a foul (the initial or the ultimate infraction).

For instance, during a live ball, A1 pushes B1, as the push is completed, A1 immediately follows up with a punch.

How many of you call two fouls?

If you wanted to divide time into little self-contained boxes, you could call two or more fouls on almost every foul.

I agree with tharbert.

Mike

The answer to your question is a no brainer: There are a lot of us would call two fouls in your play. The pushing foul by A1 caused the ball to become dead. After the ball became dead, A1 decided to commit a flagrant technical foul.

I do not know if you could call two or more fouls on almost every foul, but yes you can divide time into little self-contained boxes, it is called discrete mathematics. As a structural engineer, physicsref will help me out here because the dividing of time into increments is more in his field and not mine.

NO!!! No more calculus!! I can't take it!!! :)

Little boxes, time, and making physics work for you.
 

Well, since the physicist point of view was requested...

Sure you can divide time up into whatever size you want for this. Time is generally a measure of which event precedes another. I think the question here is not how much can you divide time, rather it is "What do define as your event?".

My two cents: make life easy on yourself and call the whole sequence one event. Each event receives one penalty. What would your evaluator say if you called two fouls on B1 when A1 goes up for a shot and your reasoning was: Well coach he hit him on the elbow with the right hand and pushed him in the chest with hes left hand.

Unless there is some overriding reason to divide the event, don't. We give the clock a second of lag time, give the player at least that much time, probably a little longer--he's not focused on our whistle as much as the play.

Could you justify two penalties? Probably.
Could you justify one penalty? Sure.
Do you accomplish anything else by administering a second penalty? Probably not.

In summation, review your old physics texts, preferably the one that mentions relativity and learn these terms:

Event
Simultaneity
Inertial Frame

and complete all the exercises from Chapters 1-28. Test is on Friday. I recommend you spend at least 48 hours studying for it.

Re: Little boxes, time, and making physics work for you.
 

It's ok everyone. We just have to pull out our HP48SX's, and beam the correct answers around from person to person. I suggest everyone take 1 question, and circulate the answers around using the usual method. If you make a correction, message the group for updates. For those that have RIM's Blackberry, we will be using the standard IR protocol, set your devices for Graphical Receive.

The administration knows about these devices, but they can't ban them in exams until it's past by the University Senate, and they don't meet until two Tuesdays from now.

So, you have time to drink tonight and tomorrow night, and still be ok for the exam on Friday!

Cheers,

Mike

Slider I would definitely call a second T and toss a kid for retaliating with a punch after a pushing foul.

I think time is relative. If the push is part of the fight, then Whack, he's gone. Now if he commits a common foul be pushing, i.e. push, beep, play stops, "#42 push", punch, beep #42 T.

I was envisioning a bang-bang play (literallly).

A1 extends arm on push, push puts B1 just where A1 wants him; within nano-seconds other hand comes in, BAM, pops B1.

I have a single Flagrant Personal (live ball).

BTW, each punch in a fight could be a flagrant T if you want to go nuts about calling everything.

[Edited by Slider on Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:52 PM]

I don't think so. Throwing a punch is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. Throwing several punches is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. There is not a rule that says each punch is a flagrant T.

If a ref doesn't use common sense:

A1 punches B1 (T for fighting)
B1 retaliates, punches A1 (T for fighting)
A1 retaliates, punches B1 (another T for fighting)
ect.

I don't see anything in the rules to outlaw such a T party. Each punch could be a new fight.

Your common sense tells you this is ridiculous, not the rules.

We agree to disagree. Each punch is not a new fight. I have to believe you are the only one who thinks each punch is a new fight.

I never said that, I said each punch isn't a new fight, but the rules permit you to say each punch is the act of a new fight.

I have not seen this rule you are talking about. Soooo what is it. Hmmmmmmm.

When you get tired of looking, just come back in admit you were wrong. :)

Slider,
I personally think that a punch should be penalized with an ejection. I would not count the punches and penalize a T on each punch. First punch bang he gets a T and ejection. If retaliation occurs with a punch bang he gets a T and ejection also.
I don't allow punching on my watch.
Peace-out

Again, let me say I would NOT rule each punch as a new fight.

Now to your question, in general, if something is not illegal by the rules, then it is permitted.

Paraphrasing 4-18-1: Fighting is an attempt to punch (whether contact is made or not).

So, each punch is fighting, and each punch could be penalized seperately if you were inclined to rule that way.

Is there a rule that says I CANNOT rule that way?

How in the world did a question about hanging on the rim end up in ANOTHER argument between Slider and everyone else - about punches and fighting??? Good grief!

This statement from the person who gave us the gem, "The rules are inadequate to cover this situation; however, to maintain the spirit and intent of the rules, I have come up with a new term: the "drag."

So, in this post, if it's not illegal by the rules, it's permitted. Yet, in the other thread, since the rules don't cover the situation, (translation: not illegal by the rules) he creates reasons to rule it illegal.

Oh yeah! That makes sense! :(

Suggestion: Go back and apply your statement from this thread to the traveling thread. Maybe you'll then understand why that play wasn't traveling.

Slider just has the way about him. ;)

i would give the kid one T. and charge the coach with an indirect T coach.

Exactly how can you give the coach an indirect T in this case,without making up rules like Slider?