Foul by disqualified player

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It just dawned on me that the tackle would be a flagrant personal rather than a flagrant technical.

It can't be a flagrant personal foul, since A1 was not in the game at the time.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My understanding is that with one act, they generally want us to call one foul. The case play addresses a very specific situation where calling one foul would allow the offending team to gain an advantage by that foul; thus they give us leeway to call 2. I don't see that here, so I think in most situations a single flagrant would be enough.

I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

It can't be a flagrant personal foul, since A1 was not in the game at the time.

Based on which rule? The ball is live.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

Any bench player knows he's not supposed to do this, being disqualified really doesn't make it any more true. From that perspective, I don't see how that matters, honestly.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If we're discussing the OP ("B6 tackles A1"), then I agree. If we're discussing the case play (B6 blocks the shot), then I don't think it qualifies as flagrant.

I was and I agree that the case play (B6 blocks the shot) isn't flagrant.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you need to check your humor plug-in.

The only way I'd issue a direct to the coach on this is if s/he said "go in and block that shot."

Ok, you caught me.

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

I understand your thinking, but, this player has already been disqualified. I think that since already DQ'd - I would go with the two technicals. It really does not matter if one is flagrant as far as the penalty goes - they are already disqualified with coach notified. They know they are disqualified and still committed the infractions. They would certainly not be on the bench any longer. Since coach did not necessarily "allow" A1 to participate - he would not add to the T count.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the player was DQ'd or not - I'm calling two Ts.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I guess I need to read better myself, he may be referring to the quoted area. Nevermind

-Josh

I'm referring to the OP. I didn't even notice that the case play said A1 blocked the shot.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Any bench player knows he's not supposed to do this, being disqualified really doesn't make it any more true. From that perspective, I don't see how that matters, honestly.

Any bench player should know this, BUT, this idiot already did something to get DQ'd. He should receive both penalties allowed by rule. Period. He was responsible for two infractions. It was not one act. Going on the court is a seperate act. Tackling is another. If being disqualified doesn't make it any more true - it certainly doesn't make it any less true and certainly should not be an excuse NOT to enforce the rules that say he should get 2 technicals. We are not out there to give idiots like that a break. We are not deciding an outcome - that responsibility falls on his shoulders alone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

Any bench player should know this, BUT, this idiot already did something to get DQ'd. He should receive both penalties allowed by rule. Period. He was responsible for two infractions. It was not one act. Going on the court is a seperate act. Tackling is another. If being disqualified doesn't make it any more true - it certainly doesn't make it any less true and certainly should not be an excuse NOT to enforce the rules that say he should get 2 technicals. We are not out there to give idiots like that a break. We are not deciding an outcome - that responsibility falls on his shoulders alone.

First of all, the one thing that never crosses my mind on the court is any sort of concern for "deciding the outcome." Just thought I'd knock that one down quickly.

Now, on to the substance.

DQ'd may just mean he fouled out, so being DQ'd doesn't make in an idiot.

I'm picturing a crime of opportunity here, not a heat-seeking missile, with the offense running very near the sideline. It's a single act, the way I see it; just like a defender reaching across the plane and striking the ball (or thrower) during a throwin. That's two infractions in one action, yet the Fed wants us to penalize one infraction.

Now, that said, the case play we're using does not involve an actual foul, so there is a difference here that easily allows for the 2nd foul that the case play doesn't contain.

I'm coming around, frankly, but I still see the 2nd as a flagrant personal since the ball is live.

Even if I see the knucklhead run onto the court, I'm letting the breakaway play itself out. Offense may get two points plus the T here, or two points plus the T plus the flagrant personal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm coming around, frankly, but I still see the 2nd as a flagrant personal since the ball is live.

"A personal foul is a PLAYER foul ..."

"A technical foul is a foul by a NON PLAYER"

Right from 4-19 (with minor formatting edits)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"A personal foul is a PLAYER foul ..."

"A technical foul is a foul by a NON PLAYER"

Right from 4-19 (with minor formatting edits)

And there we go.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you go with two Ts, what's the difference if one is flagrant or not?

In the interp it was mentioned that there is an advantage if 2 T's are not called in this example? Since team B was up by 3 then only calling 1 T will only give team A 2 shots, even if flagrant the game was over in the interp.

In the OP you could go withthe 1 T and make it a flagrant for the tackle, then A would get the ball back again since it does not say if its the end of the game or not.

[Adam]

In the case play, A6 does not foul the shooter, he only blocks the shot.

[Fathertime]

The main debate we had was is do we award two free throws or four and do we treat it as one penalty or two.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Fathertime

The main debate we had was is do we award two free throws or four and do we treat it as one penalty or two.

You can justify going either direction, IMO.

[Texas Aggie]

A1 has fouled out and has been disqualified with the coach notified. Later in the game, B1 has a breakaway and A1 jumps off of the bench and tackles B1 before B1 can shoot.

A bunch of answers here that aren't necessarily wrong, but need further explanation, so let's go through this step by step.

1. A1 has been DQed. Thus, he becomes "bench personnel." (See 4-34-3)

2. The initial movement onto the court is a Technical foul for bench personnel and an indirect T to the HC. (See 10-4-2, 10-4).

3. The ball becomes dead when the player enters the court. (See 6-7-7).

4. The contact by A1 on B1 is a TECHNICAL foul. (See 4-19-5-a, c). This technical is also charged indirectly to the HC (he has 2 Indirects now). (See 10-4). There is no need for a discussion on intentional or flagrant fouls since the conduct described is clearly a technical. There is also no need for a discussion on DQ, since he's already DQed.

5. Team B will be awarded 4 free throws and the ball at the division line for which any Team B player or sub may attempt. We are also going to remove A1 from the confines of the bench -- probably putting him in police custody if possible!

6. You are probably going to need to write a report on this. See your state association guidelines.