Help with this one

[beachbum]

If Budjones5 can give us an explanation as to why he thinks the B player entered the lane to goaltend the ball, we would have the answer if it is flagrant or not. had there been any recent situations on the court that would cause retaliation?

But on the basis of what has been said, I believe that it was taunting, and that is flagrant. Blow him out of the game!!!!

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by beachbum

If Budjones5 can give us an explanation as to why he thinks the B player entered the lane to goaltend the ball, we would have the answer if it is flagrant or not. had there been any recent situations on the court that would cause retaliation?

But on the basis of what has been said, I believe that it was taunting, and that is flagrant. Blow him out of the game!!!!

Devil's advocate: The only two flagrant T's I see are listed as 1) changing his number without reporting it to the scorer and official, and 2) fighting....Where is the rule that shows the goaltending of a FT is flagrant? We can't just make this up....10-3-6.c gives us "baiting or taunting an opponent" as a T, but no mention of flagrant.....

[budjones05]

Originally Posted by Bishopcolle

Devil's advocate: The only two flagrant T's I see are listed as 1) changing his number without reporting it to the scorer and official, and 2) fighting....Where is the rule that shows the goaltending of a FT is flagrant? We can't just make this up....10-3-6.c gives us "baiting or taunting an opponent" as a T, but no mention of flagrant.....

Yeah, but 4-19-4 states whats a flagrant foul as well.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by budjones05

Yeah, but 4-19-4 states whats a flagrant foul as well.

Good point, Bud....I don't think I'd put this OP in as a flagrant, but 4-19-4 does open some doors....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am going to join the discussion because I think that the thread is jumping around all over the place and not following a logical sequence with regard to the Play; and based upon the description of the play , I am going to state that we are discussing a game played using NFHS Rules.


The rules that are germane to our discussion are:

Rule 4: Definitions.

R4-S6: Definition of basket interference.

R4-S19-A4: Definition of a flagrant foul.

R4-S22: Definition of goaltending.


Rule 9: Violations and Their Penalties.

R9-S11: Basket interference is a violation.

R9-S12: Goaltending is a violation.

Penalties for Sections 11 and 12: Penalty 1.


Rule 10: Technical Fouls.

R10-S3-A9: Goaltending a free throw is a technical foul.


Goaltending a free throw is, I think, the only infraction of the rules that, by definition, is both a violation (R4-S46-A3: Type 3, free throw violations) and a foul (technical foul by a player) that occur simultaneously. How can that statement be made one asks?

Violations are infractions of the rules which are penalized but not charged; fouls are infractions of the rules which are penalized and charged.

The penalties for violations can include the offended team being awarded a throw-in, a substitute free throw, or points awarded, but nobody from the offending team (player, bench personnel, or team) is charged (See R4-S47: delay of game exceptions.) with committing the infraction in the Scorebook.

The penalty for fouls can be the offended team being awarded a throw-in, free throws, or both and the offending team (player, bench personnel, or team) is charged in the Scorebook.


When B1 entered the free throw lane before the free throw attempt had touched the backboard or basket rim, he committed a delayed dead ball free throw violation. He then proceeded to commit a goaltending violation (which causes the ball to become dead) which was also a technical foul. Points are awarded for the goaltending violation and B1 is charged with a TF for goaltending a free throw.

R10-S3-A9 is quite specific in that it does not consider goaltending a free throw a flagrant foul. The question is: How do we, as officials, handle a situation such as this one?

I will admit that I do not know how I would handle this situation. I would love to hang a flagrant TF on B1, and I do feel BudJones05 pain on this one, but based upon how the definitions are currently written it would be difficult by rule. If B1 went up to swat A1's field goal attempt away and the ball landed in the third row, would we charge B1 with a flagrant TF for unsportsmanlike conduct? While this play is not quite the same as Bud's play, I do not think so.

That's my two cents for today.


GO STEELERS!!! BEAT THE CARDINALS!!!


MTD, Sr.

[budjones05]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to join the discussion because I think that the thread is jumping around all over the place and not following a logical sequence with regard to the Play; and based upon the description of the play , I am going to state that we are discussing a game played using NFHS Rules.


The rules that are germane to our discussion are:

Rule 4: Definitions.

R4-S6: Definition of basket interference.

R4-S19-A4: Definition of a flagrant foul.

R4-S22: Definition of goaltending.


Rule 9: Violations and Their Penalties.

R9-S11: Basket interference is a violation.

R9-S12: Goaltending is a violation.

Penalties for Sections 11 and 12: Penalty 1.


Rule 10: Technical Fouls.

R10-S3-A9: Goaltending a free throw is a technical foul.


Goaltending a free throw is, I think, the only infraction of the rules that, by definition, is both a violation (R4-S46-A3: Type 3, free throw violations) and a foul (technical foul by a player) that occur simultaneously. How can that statement be made one asks?

Violations are infractions of the rules which are penalized but not charged; fouls are infractions of the rules which are penalized and charged.

The penalties for violations can include the offended team being awarded a throw-in, a substitute free throw, or points awarded, but nobody from the offending team (player, bench personnel, or team) is charged (See R4-S47: delay of game exceptions.) with committing the infraction in the Scorebook.

The penalty for fouls can be the offended team being awarded a throw-in, free throws, or both and the offending team (player, bench personnel, or team) is charged in the Scorebook.


When B1 entered the free throw lane before the free throw attempt had touched the backboard or basket rim, he committed a delayed dead ball free throw violation. He then proceeded to commit a goaltending violation (which causes the ball to become dead) which was also a technical foul. Points are awarded for the goaltending violation and B1 is charged with a TF for goaltending a free throw.

R10-S3-A9 is quite specific in that it does not consider goaltending a free throw a flagrant foul. The question is: How do we, as officials, handle a situation such as this one?

I will admit that I do not know how I would handle this situation. I would love to hang a flagrant TF on B1, and I do feel BudJones05 pain on this one, but based upon how the definitions are currently written it would be difficult by rule. If B1 went up to swat A1's field goal attempt away and the ball landed in the third row, would we charge B1 with a flagrant TF for unsportsmanlike conduct? While this play is not quite the same as Bud's play, I do not think so.

That's my two cents for today.


GO STEELERS!!! BEAT THE CARDINALS!!!


MTD, Sr.

Thank you Mark! and go Steelers

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The question is: How do we, as officials, handle a situation such as this one?

I will admit that I do not know how I would handle this situation.

A good start might be to check out old rule and case books. Then check out the "sticky" for old Rules Interpretations posted at the top of the thread section.

In the 2002-03 Basketball Rules Interpretations, you will find that #20 is the exact same play.

SITUATION 20:B1 commits goaltending on A1's final free throw attempt.
RULING: Score the free throw by A1 and charge B1 with a technical foul. Team A gets two free throws for the technical foul; play is resumed with a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorers table.

Rules rulz.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

A good start might be to check out old rule and case books. Then check out the "sticky" for old Rules Interpretations posted at the top of the thread section.

In the 2002-03 Basketball Rules Interpretations, you will find that #20 is the exact same play.

SITUATION 20:B1 commits goaltending on A1's final free throw attempt.
RULING: Score the free throw by A1 and charge B1 with a technical foul. Team A gets two free throws for the technical foul; play is resumed with a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorers table.

Rules rulz.

JR:

I think you misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with the TF, that is a given, I am going to call it. Whether I am going to rule it a flagrant TF is my delemma.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

A good start might be to check out old rule and case books. Then check out the "sticky" for old Rules Interpretations posted at the top of the thread section.

In the 2002-03 Basketball Rules Interpretations, you will find that #20 is the exact same play.

SITUATION 20:B1 commits goaltending on A1's final free throw attempt.
RULING: Score the free throw by A1 and charge B1 with a technical foul. Team A gets two free throws for the technical foul; play is resumed with a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorers table.

Rules rulz.

Yep, and all of that was clarified that season because a rule change was made removing the technical foul penalty for committing BI during a FT. Until that season it was a T to either GT a FT or to commit BI during a FT. Of course, that is not the case today.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by beachbum

But on the basis of what has been said, I believe that it was taunting, and that is flagrant.

Got a rules citation that says "taunting" is a flagrant technical foul?

You may want to check out rule 10-3-7(c) and the PENALTY for it. If you issue a flagrant "T" every time you call "taunting", you're mis-interpreting the rule.

To call a technical foul for "taunting" is a judgment call always. To say that the act is severe enough to justify a flagrant technical foul is a whole 'nother matter and is another judgment call.

In this particular situation, I wouldn't dream of ever calling a flagrant "T" unless a few mo-fo's went along with the blocked FT.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Got a rules citation that says "taunting" is a flagrant technical foul? You may want to check out rule 10-3-7(c) and the PENALTY for it. If you issue a flagrant "T" every time you call "taunting", you're mis-interpreting the rule. To call a technical foul for "taunting" is a judgment call always. To say that the act is severe enough to justify a flagrant technical foul is a whole 'nother matter and is another judgment call.

I believe that beachbum may be confusing the application of the taunting rule with fighting. I believe that if the taunt leads to a fight, that the taunt is treated as part of the fight, and is thus penalized as a flagrant technical foul?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I believe that beachbum may be confusing the application of the taunting rule with fighting. I believe that if the taunt leads to a fight, that the taunt is treated as part of the fight, and is thus penalized as a flagrant technical foul?

That's the proper understanding, Billy.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Got a rules citation that says "taunting" is a flagrant technical foul?

You may want to check out rule 10-3-7(c) and the PENALTY for it. If you issue a flagrant "T" every time you call "taunting", you're mis-interpreting the rule.

That depends on where you live.

By NFHS rules, you're correct. No argument there.

But if I hit you for a T for taunting, you are ejected under NCHSAA rules. Other states may have similiar rules.