Rec league rules quiz

[Hawks Coach]

I have definite trues on 4,9,12, and 18, with 7 being false under the assumption that a requests a timeout at a moment in which it can be granted (i.e., the only decision is do we grant a timeout given that none remain)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I have definite trues on 4,9,12, and 18, with 7 being false under the assumption that a requests a timeout at a moment in which it can be granted (i.e., the only decision is do we grant a timeout given that none remain)

_____ 4) A1 dives for a loose ball and while on the floor, grabs the ball with both hands. His momentum causes him to roll over twice. This is a violation on A1.

If the momentum causes the rolling over, it's not a violation.


_____ 7) Team A has used all its timeouts. During a dead ball, A1 requests a timeout. Team A is not allowed this timeout.

A should always be granted a TO request during a dead ball (with the excpetion of successive TOs at the end of regulation or OT).

_____9) A1 is dribbling the ball. B1 goes up to A1 and, while making an attempt to play the ball, he pushes A1 off the court and into the bleachers. This is a common personal foul on B1.

Off the court and into the bleachers is a common foul? IF this happened to your team, you'd be asking for an intentional or flagrant.


_____12) There is a jump ball called and Team A will inbound under the alternating possession rule. A1 throws the ball inbounds and before it is touched by anyone on the court, A2 fouls B1. The AP arrow is switched to Team B’s direction for the next alternating possession.

The throw-in hasn't ended; A didn't violate -- the arrow doesn't change.

_____ 18) A1 is dribbling the ball with his right hand and has his left forearm extended to protect the ball. B1 attempts to swipe at the ball and makes contact with A1’s extended forearm. This is a foul on B1.

A is not allowed to extend the other arm to protect the ball. See 10-6-1, first sentence at the top of page 63.

[Gary Brendemuehl]

Looks like they are all false.

Just A Coach

[mick]

Originally posted by Gary Brendemuehl
Looks like they are all false.

Just A Coach

Justa,
Well! Now I know where you've been hiding.
mick

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Finally I Finished Flailing and Formed Finite Formulations
and Found a deFinite pattern who's Function might be to
inForm the Folks that they are Frankly Finite in their
understanding of the Fundementals. Far-out.
(Hey, I got through that without saying f***!)

BTW, I believe you owe Tony $5 for #6.

Without a doubt, this is one of the best and cleverest posts I have ever seen here. Congratulations. I guess you figured out I designed it to be easy to grade.

As for Tony's five bucks - have him take a cookie out of petty cash.

[Hawks Coach]

I started out thinking all false, then looked a little closer, in some cases wrongly, but I don't believe in all of them that is true. I blew the roll over and forgot the foul on A is not same as violation (a stupid distinction in my book, but there just the same).

Regarding knocking a player into the bleachers, gotta see it. We usually play on courts where the separation between sidelines and bleachers is not much. The sitch says B is going for ball, so it can't be an intentional foul as I read this. That leaves flagrant or common. This is not a definite in my book either way. We have a lot of hard contact due mainly to speed of play, and rarely see the flagrant. The situation does not say that the defender was playing the player, but the ball.

As for the extending arm, I know that if you extend an arm to protect ball and initiate contact (and obtain advantage) it is PC, if defender goes through the arm with body while making a steal it is probably just incidental. In this sitch we have an arm where it has no right to be being hacked. I saw (and continue to see) this as somewhat different.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Regarding knocking a player into the bleachers, gotta see it. We usually play on courts where the separation between sidelines and bleachers is not much. The sitch says B is going for ball, so it can't be an intentional foul as I read this. That leaves flagrant or common. This is not a definite in my book either way. We have a lot of hard contact due mainly to speed of play, and rarely see the flagrant. The situation does not say that the defender was playing the player, but the ball.

"A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

[zebraman]

While I agree that #4 is true in theory, I have a hard time imagining a case where a player would actually roll over twice due to momentum only. The human body slides pretty well on wood and I can imagine a player's momentum could cause them to do a half-turn or even a full turn possibly, but we aren't perfectly round. If I saw a player roll twice, I think I'd assume that the second roll wasn't caused by momentum. Whattya think?

Z

[Hawks Coach]

Thanks Bob - failed to look at that one closely enough. Never see this foul called this way, but I guess that excessive contact is all in the eye of the beholder. I actually never see refs calling flagrants, just the intentional, and then only when it there is a clear intent to foul rather than play the ball.

Maybe more refs need to read this rule this way!

[mick]

Originally posted by zebraman
While I agree that #4 is true in theory, I have a hard time imagining a case where a player would actually roll over twice due to momentum only. The human body slides pretty well on wood and I can imagine a player's momentum could cause them to do a half-turn or even a full turn possibly, but we aren't perfectly round. If I saw a player roll twice, I think I'd assume that the second roll wasn't caused by momentum. Whattya think?

Z

Z,
I think you'll know it when you see it.
mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
- have him take a cookie out of petty cash.

[/B]

Gee,now where have I seen that one before?

[Gary Brendemuehl]

Originally posted by mick

Justa,
Well! Now I know where you've been hiding.
mick

Mick

Nothing much on the other board worth commenting on.

I'll be refing some AAU ball and other tournaments this summer. During the season, I just do middle school. In the summer I get to work some high school level games.

Probably hang out here more often.

Justa

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by mick

Z,
I think you'll know it when you see it.
mick

Note that the question clearly stated that his momentum caused him to roll twice.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by mick

Bart,
I would use R5-12-2 Time-outs in excess...may be requested and shall be granted....
By which rule would you not grant the time-out?
If Coach wants one. He's getting it. I will not be his assistant.
mick

Mick, Obviously there's no rule for the "not grant". I certainly don't have a problem with granting the TO in my 1st example. Now, I ask you, are you going to grant the TO in my 2nd example?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Official has the ball and getting ready for a throwin; coach,"TO", asst. or table say. "coach, you are out of TO's", coach, " I don't want the TO". Ok no problem we continue with the throwin. This is two examples, i sure we can think of more. My point is, just asking for a TO doesn't mean you have to grant it. Now, I ask you, are you going to grant the TO?

Certainly, I would. The main reason is that I would have already blown my whistle and indicated the TO prior to the coach rescinding. Once I do that, you can take that TO to the bank.