Help with this one

[budjones05]

Team A is shooting 2 free throws. On the 2nd try, as soon as my partner throws the ball to the shooter, a player from Team B steps and enters the middle part of the lane(in between the basket and the shooter) A1 shoots the ball and player from Team B sends the ball into the 3rd row bleachers. I asset B1 with a Flagrant T(ejected), re-shot the 2nd try, and gave Team A the ball back at half court.

When I try to tell people of my officials association, we all got mix answers. Some people say that since B1 block the free throw, we should of ejected him, count the basket for goal-tending and shot 2 more for the T. Others say that since the lane violation happened first, we should just penalize Team B with a substitution shot(No T) Others say that what I did was correct. What do you guys say?

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by budjones05

Team A is shooting 2 free throws. On the 2nd try, as soon as my partner throws the ball to the shooter, a player from Team B steps and enters the middle part of the lane(in between the basket and the shooter) A1 shoots the ball and player from Team B sends the ball into the 3rd row bleachers. I asset B1 with a Flagrant T(ejected), re-shot the 2nd try, and gave Team A the ball back at half court.

When I try to tell people of my officials association, we all got mix answers. Some people say that since B1 block the free throw, we should of ejected him, count the basket for goal-tending and shot 2 more for the T. Others say that since the lane violation happened first, we should just penalize Team B with a substitution shot(No T) Others say that what I did was correct. What do you guys say?

Player Technical Foul, Rule 10-3-9: Goaltend during a free throw. I would award the point for the goaltending, and then shoot two for the T, and award the ball at the division line....I don't think you have a flagrant T here, and therefore, no ejection. You should give the delayed deadball signal for the lane violation which would be the correct mechanic, until the goaltending occurred...then WHACK! The delayed signal is replaced by the T signal....

[BktBallRef]

Goaltending is the correct call by rule. The T and ejection are left to your judgment.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Goaltending is the correct call by rule. The T and ejection are left to your judgment.

How is the T left "to your judgement?" It is required by rule....10-3-9....no discretion at all.....

[BktBallRef]

Sorry I wasn't clear. Whether the T is flagrant or not is left to your judgment.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sorry I wasn't clear. Whether the T is flagrant or not is left to your judgment.

Got it...I agree with that....

[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!!!!

[hoopguy]

The op does not say it was goaltending just that 'it was sent into the 3rd row'. If the ball was not on it's way down when the block occurred, I would award another shot for the violation and call an unsporting T for the blocked free throw. Not sure if that is correct though.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

The op does not say it was goaltending just that 'it was sent into the 3rd row'. If the ball was not on it's way down when the block occurred, I would award another shot for the violation and call an unsporting T for the blocked free throw. Not sure if that is correct though.

You need to reread the definition of goaltending. The "downward flight" provision applies only to a try or tap for goal.

On a free throw, any touch of the ball outside the cylinder is goaltending. 4-22

[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....

[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.

[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