Boys varsity summer league. A1 is at the line to shoot the first of two shots. I am lead in two man. He misses and the ball bounces off the bracket right back at him. My partner waves subs in and A1 takes a "practice shot" while I am calling for the ball.

Since it was summer league, I just told him that if he wanted to practice, he should do it at halftime.

My question is - if this was a regular season sanctioned game, would you make a call here? If so, what? Certainly he is gaining an unfair advantage by practicing at that time, but is a technical warranted?

BTW - this does not come under the delay rule for warnings but could come under the technical foul rule for intentional delay.

I think you handled it perfectly. I don't see any reason to give a T, since there's no delay. Everybody's waiting for the sub anyway. I'd just get the ball after the "practice" shot and ask him not to do it again. What if he does it again anyway? I really don't know. Maybe I'd be more stern and tell him next time I'd consider it unsportsmanlike for ignoring my instructions. But I doubt there would be 3 chances in a game for him to do it.

Chuck

I know dunking is in there, but is isn't there some obscure rarely used, except by rookies, rule that says taking a shot during a dead ball period is a T?

No T.
 

I am with Chuck. Unless the kid keeps doing it, maybe then and only then would you make an issue out of it. But I would never T a kid for something not covered specificially in the rules like this. It just would not be good common sense.

Peace

Re: No T.
 

<b>It is covered in the rules.</b> It's illegal and it's a technical foul. Mark is simply asking if anyone would call it.

Re: Nit picking
 

This is <b>not</b> specifically covered in the rules. If you are talking about 10-3-7b, sorry but that is not my interpretation of that rule, nor is this the situation decribed. A1 did not delay anything and the ball came right back to him. Not even the casebook covers this specifically, so what are you talking about? No delay, not a technical and common sense wins out here. But then again you think giving a T for a kid cursing to himself is warranted. What else should be expected from you Tony?

And if I did not make myself clear, I am with Chuck on this one and his explaination. The rest of it you are just nit picking.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Jul 1st, 2002 at 01:49 AM]

Re: Re: Nit picking
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[B]This is <b>not</b> specifically covered in the rules. If you are talking about 10-3-7b, sorry but that is not my interpretation of that rule, nor is this the situation decribed. A1 did not delay anything and the ball came right back to him. Not even the casebook covers this specifically, so what are you talking about? No delay, not a technical and common sense wins out here. But then again you think giving a T for a kid cursing to himself is warranted. What else should be expected from you Tony?

And if I did not make myself clear, I am with Chuck on this one and his explaination. The rest of it you are just nit picking.

Peace

It Is covered SPECIFICALLY in therulebook--SPECIFICALLY under R-2-7-4!That says-Quote-"The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules.This includes prohibiting practice during a dead ball,except between halves."-Unquote.That rule has been in the book forever.You CAN call a T,if you want to.That's up to the official's judgement.It's nitpicking as to whether you should call it,NOT whether you CAN call it.
Tony and Brian's answers were bang on!!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 1st, 2002 at 04:31 AM]

You can expect me to know the rules!

NF 2-7-4
The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes prohibiting practice during a dead ball, except between halves.

I've never called this and probably never would unless the player was warned and did it again.

And, no, I don't give technical fouls to players who curse at themselves under their breath. I defy you to find a post where I have ever made such a statement. In NC, we are required to eject players who direct profanity an opponent, a fan or an official. Sorry if you don't like the rule, but I am required to follow.

Don't argue with me about the rules, Rutledge. You can't win.

Personally, I handle like Padgett did and 'T' the kid if he does it a 2nd time. <i>Unless</i> I've called for the ball and he's <i>really</i> blowing me off. He'd have to be sportin' quite a 'tude to get the 'T' in that situation.

I think this is just one of those situations you need to handle professionaly.

Is there a rule, yes. do you want to enforce it, probably not. Unless a kid starts chucking half court threes, or dunking after every whistle, I am just going to have a polite conversation with him.

I know I will probably get blasted, but I did make this call once.

Ball gets kicked OOB, Coach A catches it. I walk over with my hands out for the ball. When I am bout 2 feet away, Coach A, from OOB shoots it. Bang.

Worst part for me was, I called the T post release, and prior to it going in. Crowd went nuts twice.

Is that the "spirit" of the rule.
 

So I guess when A1 is fouled by B1 (non-shooting foul) and immediately A1 takes a shot that is "practicing" to most of you. I look at "practicing" during dead balls, as them running a quick layup drill or shooting FTs during a timeout. 2-7-4 does not even have a casebook play that backs this up.

Now my question is to the rest of you, if this rule is clearly stated in your mind, why would you not give the kid a T? You are convinced he violated something, why not a T? I personally think your interpretation is a stretch. I do not think the intent of the rule was to prevent every single dead ball shot. Especially when the kid did not run after the ball, then put up a shot. I have seen this a 100 times on TV or in an actual game I am witnessing, and not a single official seems to address it. I feel because it does not violate the "spirit" of the rule. The "spirit" to me would be when a kid going after the ball and the official clearly avoiding the officials orders or demands and shooting FTs. That did not happen, the ball came right back to A1 and it was described that he immediately put up a shot.

I just do not see the injustice.

Peace

Re: Is that the
 

It is not at all about that Rutledge. No one here has said they would have given a technical in the original situation. Common sense and, as you say, the "spirit" of the rule says you should just ask the kid not to do it again. What it is about, is you not knowing the rule. You said "But I would never T a kid for something not covered specificially in the rules like this. It just would not be good common sense." It most certainly is covered in the rules and needs to be so we would have reason to assess a technical if the player ignores our request to stop and continues to delay the game. Stop changing the subject and admit you didn't know it was a rule.
Peace.

You didn't even know the rule existed but you're now sure that the spirit of the rule hasn't been violated. Caught again and you're covering your tracks. Who here is surprised? :D

Yes, the rule is designed to prevent players from shooting a shot or shots during dead ball periods. No, it doesn't have to be a lay-up drill to be considered a violation of this rule. The rule isn't designed to penalize a player who takes a shot as a continuation of play, after the whistle is blown.

And, no one here has advocated calling the T. Why? Because we don't call the game strictly by the rule book. Nor do we ignore things that must be called. This is a situation where judgment, combined with rules knowledge, makes the decision.

Brian, I don't have a problem with the T you called. The coach was obviously trying to show you up. Whether he was a good shot or not is of no consequence. :)

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jul 1st, 2002 at 10:46 AM]

Re: Re: Is that the
 

:)

Wow!!!
 

Give a T then. It is a rule. How can you look at yourself in the mirror and not give a T?

The casebook is for the interpretations, not the rulebook unless specifically covered. This is not specifically covered and is not in the casebook. Kid did not ignore Mark, nor delay the game. If that is the case, call Ts on coaches that have the ball roll to them or players and they do not immediately give the ball right back to you after you ask. Go looking for trouble all you want, I am going to ALWAYS TRY to avoid Ts at all cost and this is one of those times. Especially when there is nothing that covers this specific situation.

You are right, I have never seen or known of a casebook play that covers this. To me this is a big reach on your part or anyone that really wants to give a kid a T for this.

Peace

Re: Wow!!!
 

Oh for God's sake...no one has said they would T the kid for this...and as was pointed out before, you are simply changing the subject to cover your butt because you didn't know there was a rule...and as was also pointed out, no one is really surprised by that!

You know, I just HATE it when somebody points out a rule that I've totally forgotten. It doesn't happen too often, but this is one of those times. I don't spend enough time in rules 1, 2, and 3.

Having said that, is there any mention of what the penalty for taking a practice shot is? Why are we assuming that it must be a T? Maybe it's a violation. The other question is whether every shot (during a dead ball) is considered practicing. If the ball bounces back to the kid, and he just puts it up again, I'm not sure I'd consider that practicing. If he goes thru his whole FT routine, then ok, he's obviously practicing. I guess my point is that it just seems way too murky to give a T for taking a FT during a dead ball. I stick with my original comment. Tell him not to do it again.

Now that I've spouted off again, I suppose one of you guys will pull some clause out of Rule 10 and show me that it has to be a T, and I'll just look stooopid again :)

Chuck

You got it Chuck.
 

That is the point Chuck. We have to assume that any dead ball shot is "practicing." Because under Rule 10 this is not specifically covered. If you want to say 10-3-7b applies which states, "Failing when in control, to immediately pass to the nearer official when a violation or foul is called," to me that would be a stretch. This is the only thing that might suggest that a T is warranted or that a rule has been violated.

And for those that keep saying I suggest that you would give a T, you need to look deeper in the comments I made. I do not think a rule has been directly violated here. So calling it or not is not the issue. I am saying there is no specific rule that covers this or suggest that a delay of any kind has taken place. So in order to call something, you have to suggest that a rule has been violated. I claim nothing has been done wrong either way. And if it has, this would have had to have been done several times for me to even consider taken any action. I might say something to the kid, but that does not mean I would seriously consider calling a T or not considering a T.

Again, this is a situation for the casebook. No such play, no call to make. It is that simple for me.

Peace

Re: You got it Chuck.
 

Just weighing in...

I HAVE seen a similar play called as a T. During a dead ball, a player (frosh boys) took a quick shot, and whack.

Nevertheless, I agree with the restraint suggested by most. Another interesting angle is that the rule cited specifically prohibits *practicing* but does not specify that it is *shooting* practice. I am fairly confident that if a player took a little dribble between his legs before passing us the ball, none of us would T him for "practicing his ballhandling." Thus I think it is necessary to do a bit of interpretation of the reason for the rule and the spirit of the rule and to decide whether we would really be improving the game by calling the T.

Two things and ways of looking at it.
 

2-7-4 applies here or 10-3-7b.

You either buy that we have "practicing" here or a delay of some kind.

If this is "practicing," JoeT is correct about ruling other actions as "practicing." So any pass, dribble or shot must be considered "practicing" if you buy that argument or to stay consistent in that interpretation. I personally think that rule was put in to prevent from players shooting shots during timeouts and obvious dead ball situations that has nothing to do with play. To me, this situation Mark gave is not <b>specifically covered</b> as a situation to warrant a T.

The other is simply a delay. Considering that the ball came right back to A1 and he immediately took a shot, while players are coming into the game, I see no delay. Again, this situation was not <b>specifically covered in my opinion.</b> No casebook play at all to cover the ambiguousness of this play. Because of that fact, it would be reaching for me to say this is even what the rule intended.

You can completely disagree with my points, you have that right. I think this situation is not why these rules were created.

Peace

Re: Two things and ways of looking at it.
 

This is what Mark P wrote:


Boys varsity summer league. A1 is at the line to shoot the first of two shots. I am lead in two man. He misses and the ball bounces off the bracket right back at him. My partner waves subs in and A1 takes a "practice shot" while I am calling for the ball.


What about this is NOT an obvious dead ball???? How is
taking a practice FT while waiting to shoot your real FT
not......practicing???? (Note the pregnant pause for
dramatic effect here. Kinda like Cpt Kirk from the old
Star Trek:

Kirk: "Bones, how could this not....be.........practicing?"
Bones "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a referee!"
Spock: "Highly illogical, Captain."

BTW, I don't think I've ever given a T for this type of
thing and I hope I never will. But it's there in the rules.

Wow - I never thought this would spark so many comments. One point I was trying to make was that this situation is different, IMHO, than some kid taking a shot after a whistle - which is something we see all the time. In my case, we had a kid who just missed a FT (it was long) and he took a "practice shot" to measure his next shot. I think that's different than just some kid who just had a violation called on him, or perhaps stopped because a timeout was called, tossing the ball up at the basket.

BTW - when a kid shoots after the whistle, I usually say, "Don't shoot after the whistle. It confuses the scorer and he's not too sharp to begin with." It usually gets a laugh, but one time a kid looked at me and said, "that's my Dad....and actually, you're right."

Re: Re: Two things and ways of looking at it.
 

Whatever you say Dan. I am still sticking to the logic I gave and JoeT gave and Chuck gave. I do not think it is practicing. If you do, life will go on. ;)

Peace

I throw my two cents into this.......Game management comes into play, whether it is consider praticing or not! IT is covered in the rules (some will not agree(my opinion)). Just like contact is a foul if you read the rule, basically any contact on the person with the ball. Do we call all contact? NO! We each decide what amount of contact is consider a foul and what isn't. We each must decide what we consider practicing or not and handle it accordingly.
I would tell the player that what he/she did was not appropriate, would not say anything more!

I would say what the FT shooter did was practicing. In the spirit of the game or rules I would warn the Shooter!

AK ref SE

I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$ (yeah, sure), but nobody answered my question. Rule 2 says it's prohibited to practice, but there's no penalty listed. Why are we so quick to say that it's a T? Maybe it's just a violation. You take away the ball, or the FT, and continue on. Any thoughts?

Chuck

Isn't there something somewhere about not immediately getting the ball to the ref? That's unsportsmanlike, if I remember correctly.

Amazing!!!!
 

Good point Chuck. If you look at the other things that fall under 2-7, not a single thing has a penalty. Not only that, they are just duties of what we do as officials. Not a single one has a consequence, not that there would be on, but there is nothing to support mosts arguement.

And if you look under at Rule 10, I do not see a single behavior that this would fall under really. I guess you could say 10-3-7, but other than assuming, there is nothing that supports this being a T or any penalty for that matter.

But what do I know, I do not know the rules. :D

Peace

Re: Amazing!!!!
 

Amen!

JR, could you be more perdictable?
 

Probably not.

Peace

The rule is written as all-inclusive.It has to cover the actions of both teams,offense and defense,at all times other than between the halves.If the defense commits the illegal act under R2-7-4,a violation could not possibly be a penalty(except during a FT).That's why a T is the penalty.This particular call was spelled out in a POE many,many years ago as a T,but I don't keep my books that long.Maybe MTD Sr. has got a reference somewhere in his library.

Re: Re: Amazing!!!!
 

Chuck, we aren't making this up. At one time, the rulebook listed the penalty specifically for practicing during dead balls as a technical foul. There hasn't been any type of rule change that I know of. Sometimes editorial changes are made without the knowledge or consent of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committe. Just look at 2-84. The rule changed last year but the change, with editorial or otherwise was not approved by the committee.

But I think you know that Mark, Brian, Dan, Woody, Devon, DJ and me didn't all just conspire to make this up! :)

I'll do some research in my old rule books and see what I can find.

D@mn Woody, you beat me to it! :D

So basically you want us to believe..........
 

way back when, at a time far, far away there was a rule? You have got to be kidding me?

So I guess officials that are newer are suppose to go on rules and things that exsisted at one point. I guess we should give just call Ts on players that do not raise their hand anymore after a foul. That would make sense. WOW!!!!

But I am the one that does not know the rules. :rolleyes:

To quote John Stoslele(sp?) from ABC 20/20, "Give me a break."

Peace

Re: So basically you want us to believe..........
 

No,Rut,we're telling you that there IS a rule SPECIFICALLY in the rulebook NOW!That rule is R2-7-4.Borrow a rulebook and look it up.We're not lying to you.

Even if he would eventually admit that a rule exists that does cover this (or any other situation), he would stand by his original conclusion by saying something like:

1. That's not the meaning of the rule
2. You must not have reffed for long
3. You will not go very high if you call that

Doesn't matter the situation, the response is the same.

OK
 

Whatever you say man. :rolleyes:

Peace

Re: JR, could you be more perdictable?
 

Perdictable???????? What the heck is perdictable?????

Piece

Again...Oh for God's sake...did anyone actually ever say they WOULD call a T for this?? I believe it was simply pointed out that a T COULD be called...big difference...but what do I know - I don't ref in Illinois...

Peas

Re: Re: JR, could you be more perdictable?
 

It's how Jed Clampett would pronounce "predictable".

Peas

I guess Jed could have been from Illinoise originally.