Here's the situation. I've never seen it happen, it's just an interesting "what if. . .". TH, crew and I have been discussing it and I thought it would make for some interesting discussion.

4.2 seconds remaining in the 4th quarter. Team A leads by 3 points. B1 is in the act of shooting a 3-point try when a player from team A's bench runs on the floor contacts B1. The try is unsuccessful. What do we call, and how do we administer?

The NBA has a specific ruling that you would award 3 points and assess a T.

In HS and NCAA, it seems that the rules unfairly penalize the offended team. The most likely ruling is a flagrant T on the player from A's bench. But that only gives 2 shots, not enough to tie the game. And in NCAA, if the shot had already been released, then team B might not even get the ball back (they would go to the arrow).

What do you think is appropriate here? I have my own idea, but I'll hold off on giving it for a while.

Chuck

The easy answer is 3 free throws for the interference during the shot and 2 shots for the flagrant T.

The hard answer, because I think it is the right thing to do, is that team A forfeits the game 1 – 0. There is no excuse for this type of action. :(

I can think of a few possibilities.

First, you can not award the points. There is no support for that anywhere.

As RecRef suggested, a forfeit is a very real possibility and would be completely justified.

Chew on this idea....

1. A6 is charged with a flagrant T for illegally entering the floor.
2. Since continuous motion applies, B1 was in the act, the ball remains live. A6 is charged with an intentional foul for contacting B1.

You could stop here with team B getting 2 shots for the T and B1 getting 3 shots for the personal foul plus the ball back.

However, in such a drastic case, I think you could carry it a little further...

3. Since A had 6 players participating, team A is also charged with a team T. 2 more shots.

You could keep finding infractions to pile on since the ball remains live until the try ends.

4. Perhaps, A6 says something along the way where you could call an unsportsmanlike T against him. 2 more shot.


In then end, you either call a forfeit for such a travesty, or you make B earn it (perhaps again) at the line while finding a way to give them plenty of FT attempts.

My preference...forfeit.

Earlier in the game, since it doesn't have such a direct impact on the outcome, it should probably only be a T plus a shooting foul.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 1st, 2002 at 03:36 PM]

I am not sure if this is specifically covered by the rules, but there is no provision to award a bucket for any reason other than goaltending or BI.

I think in this case the offensive team takes in the jockey's. It is only a T (and I will not get into a lengthy discussion on the type of T, I think we would all boot the kid) against the player who ran on the floor.

It would appear to be a loop hole in the rules, but I am not going to make something up to accomodate it (like give him one T for entering the floor without being beckoned, one for assulting the shooter, and one for having 6 players on the floor). Just bad luck for the O.

"Interference"? How would back that up? Not being critical, honest. I just want to know what your justification would be.

Quote:

The hard answer, because I think it is the right thing to do, is that team A forfeits the game 1 – 0.

Wouldn't it be 2-0?

Maybe I am over simplifying things but Rule 2 Sect. 3-The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules. Secondly (with 4 seconds left in the game) Rule 2 Sect. 5 Art. 4--may declare the game a forfiet when conditons warrant. I would have no problem calling my assigner or state director and tell him with 4 seconds left I forfieted the game because of the actions as stated above.

I'd let my partners handle this one! :D

LOL! I was thinking the same thing!

"I'll be waiting down by the other endline until you guys settle this. Take your time...no rush..."

Rule 5.4.1 states that a forfeit is recored as 2-0 in favor of the "winning" team.

Man am I glad to see I was not alone :)

Got a feeling, whatever you decided to do, you better be able to explain it confidently to both coaches. However pulls off selling a ruling on a situation like this, my company has an opening for a Nat'l Account Manager...I'm serious.

i'm not sure i like your interpretation of the NCAA rules for this situation. in the case of a flagrant T, which I would call for this play, the team retains possession and gets the ball at the division line. see 2002 NCAA Rule 10-12-1.

other than that i agree that i would give 3 ft's for contacting the shooter and 2 ft's for a flagrant T and then team A would get the ball back at the division line.

It’s a poor choice of words on my part. Interference, as in, a foul in the act of shooting. :o

Quote:

The hard answer, because I think it is the right thing to do, is that team A forfeits the game 1 – 0.

Wouldn't it be 2-0? [/B][/QUOTE]

2, yes you are correct. The 1 came from a rec league's rules I put together a few years back. 1 - 0 for no-shows.

Good catch!! I forgot that the flagrant also gives possession. (Strangely, I remembered that an intentional T gives possession. . . :confused: ) I was trying to make the situation as dire as possible and just got over-eager. Thanks for pointing it out.

Chuck

I like - kind of a 5-to-make-3 situation going on. All fouls would be technicals (although I'm not sure of a flagrant T for illegal entry, the contact would have to be an intentional (at least) T, giving 3 shots) so the shots can be from any player.


I dunno on this one. It seems a bit too much like MTD Sr.'s double jeopardy penalties.



Mine, too. Just as a quick note to all concerned, a forfeit is recorded as 2-0 only if the team to which the game is forfeited is behind at the time of the forfeit.

This was actually the idea I originally had. I thought that you could give a T for illegal entry, and a T for 6 players on the floor. I call this the DeNucci Doctrine -- penalizing two infractions on the same action. I don't really like it either, but I couldn't come up with anything better. And to be honest, I don't really like the idea of forfeiting the game b/c of one stupid kid's action, especially since it wasn't violent. Speaking of forfeits. . .

Correct, and that's the case in the situation. That's why I merely corrected the score in my previous post. But it's good to have a reminder. If the team to which the game is forfeited is ahead at the time of the forfeit then the score in the book at the time of the forfeit officially becomes the final score.

This is probably a totally different thread, but can anybody recall an NCAA or NBA game that was decided by forfeit? I can't.

Chuck

I don't have my books anywhere near me.....but is it specified that a personal foul has to be committed by a player on the opposing team, or just an opponent? This could come into play in this situation.

Once again forgive me for not having my books at my disposal. :)

Are you thinking along the lines of A6 isn't a "player" but instead s/he's "bench personnel?" I suppose that would have to effect how you'd distribute the fouls. :confused:

It would have a big effect on whether you can call a foul and award three shots. I do not think you can, I think you can only penalize the action of coming on the court period, 2 shots ball, and reams of paperwork afterward.

4-19-1

"A personal foul is a <b>player</b> foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live..."

4-19-2

"A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double or multiple foul."

So, what does this tell us??????

Like Brian said, it tells us there's a loophole in the rules. :D

Interesting question, bard and Brian.

Ignoring the probable resolution of a forfeit...

T for bench personnel entering the floor illegally. We all agree there.

Since the shooter was in the act, the ball remains live. Until the try ends, the ball is live.

Now, while you've clearly noted that a personal foul must be commited by a <b>player</b>, does that illegal sub/bench personnel become a player? Since an illegal "substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live" implies that the ball is dead when the infraction actually occurs, it doesn't directly apply. It could perhaps be extended (through use of 2-3) to say that the sub becomes a player when the ball is already live. Thus, the illegal entrant could "become" a player capable of commiting a personal foul. However, someone must become a non-player at the same time. Not sure how to choose who...but would it matter.

The 6 player T actually calls them "6 squad memebers" implying that the 6th is not a player. This illegal entrant generally stays bench personnel.

That said, it is a T for a non-player to commit a foul. This fits the definition of an intentional foul. I think we could still call an intentional T for the contact. We could, by rule, come up with 2 T's. One for bench personnel entering in the court. Another for a non-player commiting an intentional foul ("personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position")

In the end, I would either forfeit or invoke 2-3 since this scenario is not clearly/completely covered. No way I would let the team that violated come out of this situation with anything more than a tie. The only ways to do that is forfeit or ensure that enough FTs are taken to make 3.

I think you still have two seperate acts to deal with here
1. is the T for illegal entry
2. Flagrant T for unsporting actions (non player intentional contact with player during live ball)

eject A6, have B shoot 4 FT (coach picks the shooter(s))
and if there is time left give the ball to B at the appropriate location (NF or NCAA)

After game report incident to state or conference commissioner.

If you really want to pile it on:(just playing)

1. is the T for illegal entry
2. Flagrant T for unsporting actions (non player intentional contact with player during live ball)
3. T for having more than 5 on the court.
4. Flagrant T on assistant Coach (NF only, so you can send the kid to the locker room with an adult.)
5. after you report all these T's, T up the head coach when he goes ballistic.

Have B shoot 10 FT's
Give the ball to B at appropriate location with 4.2
left on the clock(last time I had definite knowledge
before incident).

I am still confused on why anyone would even consider a forfeit?

If you have a fight, and someone comes off the bench are you going to call the game? This would be a stoopid act (Pun intended), but not worthy of calling a game. Who has the rule book. Isn't a forfiet only allowed when:

- Team does not show up
- Team refuses to obey the ref (i.e. coach takes team off the floor, refuses to come back)
- Game Management refuses to obey ref (i.e. won't eject fan in Uecker section because he is yeling at us).
- Team has fewer than 5 players and can no longer compete.


Where would this come in? I certainly don't think you could declare this such a travesty that would prevent the game from continuing and just end it.

I guess I can see why it would be considered, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think it's a particularly compelling idea either. . .

I would rather find a way to penalize the kid and give the offended team a fair and reasonable chance to win the game. But I don't like just giving it to them, b/c one kid was out of control.

And this should probably also be its own thread, but: Doesn't football have a rule that if a player comes off the bench to stop what would clearly have been a touchdown, then the officials can award a touchdown? I'm sure I've seen a highlight of this happening, but can't remember what the result of the play was.

Chuck

<i>And this should probably also be its own thread, but: Doesn't football have a rule that if a player comes off the bench to stop what would clearly have been a touchdown, then the officials can award a touchdown? I'm sure I've seen a highlight of this happening, but can't remember what the result of the play was.</i>

You are correct. If the offensive player had a clear shot to the endzone, he still gets the TD.

unusual situation
 

My opinion only. First we have a tech for coming on the floor. The play is now dead, but the shot counts if it goes. Second, B1 is still in the act of shooting, but the second foul happens after the whistle has stopped play. This has to be a flagrant tech. A6 is gone, two shots for the first foul, three shots for the second foul, because A1 is in the act of shooting a three, and team B gets the ball at the half court line away from the table.

Re: unusual situation
 

Todd -

As stated in my earlier post, I agree with your ruling, but I believe that A would get the ball back, even by NCAA rules, because of the flagrant T. Any thoughts?

Jacob Tingle

p.s. i hope the rest of your summer went well!

I got my A's and B's mixed up. The offended team gets the ball back. The summer went well. I did not get fired from any junior high conferences! hope you had as good, or better luck. Let's get another assignment together next year.

I guess I'll weigh in on this one,seeing my partners laughed at me when I told them to handle it:
1)Use R3-2,'cause it isn't specifically covered.
2)plain ol' technical foul on A for coming on the floor.Coming onto the floor,by itself,is not a flagrant act(think coach or bench-player taking a few steps onto the court).
3)Withold whistle and ball is still alive,similar to the case where you withold whistle for technical on B while A is on a breakaway.
4)Flagrant technical foul for A contacting the shooter.This is where R3-2 comes in.
5)Charge A with both technical fouls,count them both against the bonus,and eject A.
6)Shoot 2 FT's for first A technical(shots taken in order of fouls occuring).Anyone shoots.
7)Shoot 3 FT's for flagrant technical,using rationale under R3-2 that this is what B1 would have got for a normal foul.B1 would shoot these FT's,rather than any B player,using the same rationale.
8)B gets possession at center,with whatever time is on the clock when A committed the second technical foul.
9)No thought of a forfeit,unless B1 was injured on the play.Write it up real good and let the league worry about it.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"-Alex Hawkins,OLD Baltimore Colt.

The rule book is pretty specific that a T is 2 shots. You would give 3 under the elasticity rule?

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