What do you have?

[mu4scott]

Lane violation on the second free throw and then a flagrant personal on the same kid for me.

[tjones1]

Free-throw violation on the shooter.

Then, I've got a flagrant on the same player.

[ranjo]

Free-throw violation on the shooter.

But I only have a common foul on the same player, because without knowledge of a previously demonstrated pattern of play, the foul looks more like a mis-judgement/lack of coordination foul than a take-down IMHO

If the trail had killed the play on the offensive violation, the whole senerio could have been avoided.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by ranjo

Free-throw violation on the shooter.

But I only have a common foul on the same player, because without knowledge of a previously demonstrated pattern of play, the foul looks more like a mis-judgement/lack of coordination foul than a take-down IMHO

If the trail had killed the play on the offensive violation, the whole senerio could have been avoided.

I would agree with you if we hadn’t seen the young mans free throw attempts. He clearly seemed to be making a mockery of the game with his turn around fade away and one handed free throws. Didn’t look like he wanting to play the game the right way. Time to hit the showers kid.

[Mark Padgett]

I have four things.

1) valid free throw
2) free throw violation
3) trail official to be smacked upside the head for missing the violation
4) illegal chop block, 15 yard penalty

[jdmara]

I have a kid that wouldn't have shot the second free throw if I was coaching. But I'm not a coach so I agree with the above posts, less the 15 yard penalty.

-Josh

[GonetoRef]

I have a violation on the defense for the first free throw. Top lane occupied??? That should be an officials mistake. I agree with everyone else's evaluation, after the first free-throw.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Okay. I am going to take a different position on this play.

Yes, smack the T for not having a free throw violation by the FT shooter, A1, on the second FT.

Now, for the play near the division line. First, this looked like an intramural game at the 8th or 9th grade level, meaning that the skill level is not that great. Second, I agree that A1's attitude about the second FT did not look good. BUT, I watched the play five times in real time and another five times in slow motion. AND here is what I saw: A1 started to move to get in front of the dribbler B1; he did not obtain a legal guarding position with respect to B1. A1 did not turn and duck until B1 went airborne. Furthermore, I did not see any contact between A1 and B1. MEANING, I have nothing on this play. If there was contact it is a common foul for blocking foul by A1 on B1.

MTD, Sr.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

MEANING, I have nothing on this play. If there was contact it is a common foul for blocking foul by A1 on B1.

Interesting. Isn't it nice to have the luxury of the video and to watch it over and over in our homes? Of course, when it happens live I wonder if anyone else notices the "little to no contact" that actually occurred. Regardless, it's gonna get a whistle! Wonder what the call actually was?

[cdoug]

Okay, maybe it's because I'm still learning the rules and haven't officiated a basketball game yet but I need help "seeing" what you all were talking about when you said a violation on the shooter for the 2nd FT attempt. I read 9-1 multiple times as well as rule 8. I'm quite sure I'm just missing it but would like to know what "it" is so I can learn and improve quicker.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BUT, I watched the play five times in real time and another five times in slow motion. AND here is what I saw: A1 started to move to get in front of the dribbler B1; he did not obtain a legal guarding position with respect to B1. A1 did not turn and duck until B1 went airborne. Furthermore, I did not see any contact between A1 and B1. MEANING, I have nothing on this play. If there was contact it is a common foul for blocking foul by A1 on B1.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with Mark.

Dribbler/passer was airborne before defender "went low"
Defender knew he couldn't get LGP, so it looks like he tried to avoid contact by awkwardly falling.
There was no contact.

Nothing.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by cdoug

Okay, maybe it's because I'm still learning the rules and haven't officiated a basketball game yet but I need help "seeing" what you all were talking about when you said a violation on the shooter for the 2nd FT attempt. I read 9-1 multiple times as well as rule 8. I'm quite sure I'm just missing it but would like to know what "it" is so I can learn and improve quicker.

He left the half circle. 9-1

[rlarry]

Free throw Violation
Flagrant Technical. Mommy's little angel dove under the player for no apparent reason. He needs to learn how to act or sit his fat arse down

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rlarry

Free throw Violation
Flagrant Technical. Mommy's little angel dove under the player for no apparent reason. He needs to learn how to act or sit his fat arse down

Larry, it's gotta be a personal, you can't call a technical for live ball contact. If flagrant, it's a flagrant personal.
It makes a difference on who shoots the free throws and where the ball is put back into play. Although in this case, the ball would be put back in play at close to the same place.

BTW, in real time, I'm going with flagrant on this.

[Adam]

I disagree with the thought there was no contact. I see dribbler's knee, at least, contacting the turd's head. On this play, it doesn't take much contact for the flagrant.