jurasic ref. I think you have the best solution. Not only do the rules allow for this, but it is the right thing to do. GOOD CALL!

The rule book is pretty specific that a T is 2 shots. You would give 3 under the elasticity rule? [/B][/QUOTE]Yup,mainly because the normal penalty for a foul in the act of shooting a missed 3-pointer is 3 shots.If I only award 2 shots,I'm penalising the shooting team by not giving them the extra shot that they would normally get.I'm basically using R3-2 to make sure that B never has any kind of disadvantage on this play.

I base it on the following part of 5-4-1 "acts which make a travesty of the game". In my opinion, to do this with 4 seconds left to prevent a tie is an absolute travesty. It has no place in the game and I don't think there is a just way to penalize the infraction without a forfeit. The penalty has to be sufficiently heavy in such cases to completely deter anyone from trying it.

To address the comments about penalizing the individual vs the team...

While the offender is a single individual, he is part of the team. As a member of the team, his actions are and should be expected to impact the team. That is the essences of a team. They are each connected and they succeed or fail together. Everything an individual does affect the team. We don't give the team the ball back just because a single player takes an ill-advised shot, ignore T when a player calls the excess time-out, or ignore an obvious personal foul when it is a strategically and tactically dumb play . All of these affect the team and may make them lose. Basketball has no method of penalizing an individual without it affecting the team.

If you don't call the forfeit, other players may still try it another time if they think it may make them win (if the shooter misses the FTs).

Regarding the comments about giving 3 points for the T. I don't think we can do that (although it makes sense). We either have to make it a personal foul (which I don't think we can since personal fouls are commited by a player and not by bench personnel) or it has to be a T for 2 shots....and anyone may take the FTs.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:20 PM]

For what it's worth, I'm with Camron on this one (For how our assignor wants things, Camron is almost always the one to agree with!). This IS a travesty. If the coach protested at all, about a forfeit, I'd write him up for poor sportsmanship. I've had a couple coaches that asked me to call fouls on their own players, and I like that attitude. "My kids are gonna win fair, or not at all," is by far the best thought a coach could have.

Looking at the summary of penalties
5. Fouled in the act of shooting(this player was shooting)
b. 3 free throws on a unsuccessful 3 pt. try
plus ball for throw in if intentional or flagrant.

if the shot is unsuccessful
2FT for T on A6 for illegal entry + indirect for head coach
3FT (b1 to shoot) for flagrant on A6 + ejection + indirect for head coach.
Ball to team B at closest spot.
Game report to state or conference commisioner(let them decide to forfiet or not)

if the shot is successful
Score 3 pts for B
2FT for T on A6 for illegal entry + indirect for head coach
2FT (b1 to shoot) for flagrant on A6 + ejection + indirect for head coach.
Ball to team B at closest spot.
Game report to state or conference commisioner

I can live with that.

Actually, this is open to debate.

Summary of Penalties for all Fouls:
(5) Fouled in act of shooting and try/tap is unsuccessful:
a. Two free throws on a two-point try or tap.
b. Three free throws on a three-point try or tap.
Plus ball for throw-in if intentional or flagrant.

This section does not require that the foul be personal - just against the shooter. I'd be willing to stretch this and say a flagrant/intentional T would be worth 3 shots in this case.

I think you have the right idea but would the foul on the shooter be a flagrant technical or a flagrant intentional? If it was a technical, then the ball would have to have already been dead, so how can there be 3 shots? If a flagrant intentional, would it be 3 shots or just 2? I dunno but I sure think that you are on the right track. This would sure be a bad game to be tired at when all this hit the fan. Ralph.

Ralph.

Ain't no such thing as a "flagrant intentional." Check the long thread about the new "swinging elbows violation signal" for a full discussion.

I think you have the right idea but would the foul on the shooter be a flagrant technical or a flagrant intentional? If it was a technical, then the ball would have to have already been dead, so how can there be 3 shots? If a flagrant intentional, would it be 3 shots or just 2? I dunno but I sure think that you are on the right track. This would sure be a bad game to be tired at when all this hit the fan. Ralph. [/B][/QUOTE]Good point,Ralph.You're right,the general concept is that contact fouls during a live ball should be personal fouls.As other posters pointed out,the rules are also unclear as to whether we can call the person who committed the foul a player,or whether we call him bench personnel.That's where the personal/technical comes into play.If you called it a flagrant personal,I think that the same rationale that I used before would justify 3 shots-i.e.the normal penalty would be 3 shots.Either way,we'd end up with B getting the ball.

By looking at the definitions in section 19 (NF)
Art 3. An intentional foul is a personal or "technical foul"
designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, "to neutralize an opponents obvious advantageous position",......

Art 5. A technical fouls is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer

I think we may have a case for an Intentional Technical foul
on A6's contact with B1 while he is shooting.

Mark, check rule 4-19-4. It explains that a flagrant foul "may or may not be intentional." I was in a freshman boys game a couple years ago where, in a hotly contested game, a player was going for a fastbreak layup and while airborne, the opponent closing in fast, dropped his head and shoulders and upended the shooter landing him on his head. We naturally tossed the player. We didn't use any verbage but it was obviously intentional and flagrant.

As far as the above thread goes, as I understand the rule, whenever you have an intentional foul on a shooter, if the shot was not good, then the 2 or in this case 3 shots would be taken and then they get the ball back. In other words, you don't shoot the normal 2 shots for the intentional. If the basket had been good, then the shooter would get 2 shots and the ball back for an intentional foul. So, in the above situation, if you called the foul on the shooter an intentional instead of a technical, he would get his 3 shots rather than just get the 2 for the tech.

[Edited by Ralph Stubenthal on Aug 4th, 2002 at 11:30 AM]

To borrow from one of the posts on the last thread, replace "intentional" in that phrase with "deliberate."




Yes, it qualifies as either, but you can only assess one - otherwise, the player would attempt 4(6) free throws.
Actually, by #5 of the summary of penalties, the player gets 3 shots for any foul against him during a missed 3pt try/tap.

[Edited by Ralph Stubenthal on Aug 4th, 2002 at 09:30 PM]

Here's the problem - there's no such thing as a "flagrant intentional."

A foul must be, at the least, personal or technical.

On top of a personal or technical designation, you can add qualifiers such as "flagrant," "common," "intentional," "player-control," etc. (within limits, of course - obviously you can't have a common technical foul).

For a full explaination of all this, see thread 5469 - http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=5469 - I think most everyone here has beaten this issue into the ground. :D