Hanging on the rim question

[rockyroad]

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???

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[tharbert]

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.

[Mark Dexter]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
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

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
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???

I agree with tharbert.

Mike

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Slider

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.

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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!!!

[physicsref]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by physicsref
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.

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