Throw-in

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

twist...A1 intentionally sets the ball down within reach of the throw-in area say three feet away. B1 reaches through and grabs it...T on B1 right? could you have unsporting T on A1? granted B1 shouldn't take the bait, but this is obviously unusual and A1 intentionally would have done so to draw B1 into a tech.....this obviously for all of the coaches who roam this board

Using that logic, in another situation, you'd have to call a T on A1 who does a basic pump fake hoping B1 fouls him.

Caveat Emptor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Using that logic, in another situation, you'd have to call a T on A1 who does a basic pump fake hoping B1 fouls him.

Caveat Emptor.

Agreed, the onus is on the defender not to reach across.

[slow whistle]

You don't see an angle by the definition of unsporting foul?

"...noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play"

One could argue that play is not "in the spirit of fair play"....I believe a tech either way could be defended...

[slow whistle]

I could even think of a situation where a coach might attempt to employ this strategy...down 5 with 1 second left in the game....you aren't getting two shots off in one second obviously, but if you can draw team B into a tech then you could put two on the board with no time coming off...now you have the ball at half court, down 3 with one second left...you have a helluva a lot better chance that B1 will take the bait than you do scoring 5 pts in 1 second otherwise...now I agree that B1 should know better than to reach through, but to me an obvious attempt to draw an opponent into a technical foul should be penalized as unsporting and I believe the definition of unsporting foul allows you that latitude...

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I could even think of a situation where a coach might attempt to employ this strategy...down 5 with 1 second left in the game....you aren't getting two shots off in one second obviously, but if you can draw team B into a tech then you could put two on the board with no time coming off...now you have the ball at half court, down 3 with one second left...you have a helluva a lot better chance that B1 will take the bait than you do scoring 5 pts in 1 second otherwise...now I agree that B1 should know better than to reach through, but to me an obvious attempt to draw an opponent into a technical foul should be penalized as unsporting and I believe the definition of unsporting foul allows you that latitude...

If I am up 5 (4 for that matter) with one second, my players are nowhere near the throw in.

We had 2 FTs with 6 seconds left up by 4 . I cleared the lane and had my players stand inbounds by the bench. Not for the reason of the topic, but because I have varsity girls and I've seen plenty of enough dumb things happen. Clock runs out before/if I needed to throw in.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

If I am up 5 (4 for that matter) with one second, my players are nowhere near the throw in.

We had 2 FTs with 6 seconds left up by 4 . I cleared the lane and had my players stand inbounds by the bench. Not for the reason of the topic, but because I have varsity girls and I've seen plenty of enough dumb things happen. Clock runs out before/if I needed to throw in.

Good move, but we both know that not all coaches are that smart....and even for those that are, we both know that players don't always do what they are told!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Good move, but we both know that not all coaches are that smart....and even for those that are, we both know that players don't always do what they are told!

And it's not our job to protect them if they aren't or don't.

If A1 places the ball on the floor and wipes her hands on her shorts, are you going to give her a T? How obvious does it have to be? It's too subjective, IMO, and there's no precedent for calling it this way.

The T on B1 is much easier to explain, and justify, because it's concrete. What's the coach going to say, "she tricked her into it!" Really?

If you see it coming, then hit your whistle as soon as B1 reaches across and give the warning (assuming they haven't burned that already).

[Adam]

Sure, you could defend it if you had to; but I think it's a stretch. As fullor30 points out, you could do the same with a pump fake. You going to call a T at the start of a quarter when the offense lines up at the wrong end of the court with the hopes of luring the defense to the wrong end?

You might be able to stretch the meaning to include this play, but I would expect I'd have a very hard time justifying it to my assignors.

Just because it may be bush league doesn't mean it's a T.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure, you could defend it if you had to; but I think it's a stretch. As fullor30 points out, you could do the same with a pump fake. You going to call a T at the start of a quarter when the offense lines up at the wrong end of the court with the hopes of luring the defense to the wrong end?

You might be able to stretch the meaning to include this play, but I would expect I'd have a very hard time justifying it to my assignors.

Just because it may be bush league doesn't mean it's a T.

Completely understand which is why I said I think you could justify either...however, the NF has chosen to address only certain situations where you have an action/reaction situation. For instance player along the lane line fakes and causes opponent to enter, you penalize the faker. Of course the Fed cannot possibly (thankfully!) rule on every possible scenario so official judgement is needed, but when an action draws an opponent into a technical foul in the scenario I described, I think they have just raised the level to the point where you could easily go with unsporting...that said would I want to be the one to call it? NO!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Completely understand which is why I said I think you could justify either...however, the NF has chosen to address only certain situations where you have an action/reaction situation. For instance player along the lane line fakes and causes opponent to enter, you penalize the faker. Of course the Fed cannot possibly (thankfully!) rule on every possible scenario so official judgement is needed, but when an action draws an opponent into a technical foul in the scenario I described, I think they have just raised the level to the point where you could easily go with unsporting...that said would I want to be the one to call it? NO!

I was thinking about that rule, but it was originally inclusive of only the shooter when the players along the lane could enter upon the release. It made more sense because players were rightly starting their movement off of the shooter's motion.

With the rebounders, the same concept applies, since they are all trying to prevent each other from getting the ball. They are constantly having to react to one another, and a defender stepping in to fake has very little risk with a good shooter, but potentially great reward as the penalty for a double violation here is really only against the offense.

Neither of these applies to a player setting the ball on the floor during a throwin. That's the same as a player holding the ball in front of the defender but on the OOB side of the plane.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was thinking about that rule, but it was originally inclusive of only the shooter when the players along the lane could enter upon the release. It made more sense because players were rightly starting their movement off of the shooter's motion.

With the rebounders, the same concept applies, since they are all trying to prevent each other from getting the ball. They are constantly having to react to one another, and a defender stepping in to fake has very little risk with a good shooter, but potentially great reward as the penalty for a double violation here is really only against the offense.

Neither of these applies to a player setting the ball on the floor during a throwin. That's the same as a player holding the ball in front of the defender but on the OOB side of the plane.

Very true, difference would be though that you would have a damn hard time determining intent if someone is just holding the ball in front of them....they could just be holding it waiting for someone to come open...esp since if they put it across the line the defender can legally grab it. However, if they put it on the floor the intent is pretty clear...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just because it may be bush league doesn't mean it's a T.

Agree. Deceptive ≠ unsporting.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Agree. Deceptive ≠ unsporting.

But, deceptive, in some cases, can be considered unsporting.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

You don't see an angle by the definition of unsporting foul?

"...noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play"

One could argue that play is not "in the spirit of fair play"....I believe a tech either way could be defended...

If we're partners and you decide to call a T on that one in close game with seconds to go.............I'm in the parking lot fully dressed with the engine running before you're administering.

I realize it's just forum discussion but in my eye it doesn't come remotely close to any criteria for an unsporting foul that you suggest.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by fullor30

If we're partners and you decide to call a T on that one in close game with seconds to go.............I'm in the parking lot fully dressed with the engine running before you're administering.

I realize it's just forum discussion but in my eye it doesn't come remotely close to any criteria for an unsporting foul that you suggest.

ok let's think about that for a second though since your right this is just a forum discussion..the situation i described is team A down 5 with 2 seconds to go. for all intents and purposes that game is over. in my scenario i tech team A, how does that do anything to swing the outcome of the game? in your game you tech team B, thereby creating a scenario where a not so close game just got close, and that call has potentially swung the outcome of the game. now we can debate the rules support for either call all day long (which we have), but my call is a hell of a lot less controversial as far as the outcome of the game goes and there is a lot less need to hit the parking lot early...i'm not saying your call would be wrong, but if team A ends up tying the game in regulation and winning in overtime, i think the likelihood of us needing a security escort out is higher in your scenario than me teching team A and team B winning by 7 instead of 5....now of course none of this is any reason to make a call or not make a call when it is the cut and dry correct call, but i think it is a little dramatic to imply that you would have to run from an unsporting T in that situation...again i just go back to "in the spirit of fair play"...can you think of another situation where baiting an opponent into a technical foul would not be a technical foul on the "baiter"?