Foul by disqualified player
 

We had different positions on this after our chapter meeting tonight.

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.

What exactly do you call here? How many free throws, who is penalized and how, etc.

From the 2005-2006 Interps

SITUATION 12: Team B has just scored to go up by three points with time running out in the fourth quarter. Player A1 inbounds the ball to A2 close to the sideline of Team B's bench. A2 releases a three-point try just prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot. RULING: B7 shall be charged with two technical fouls and ejected. One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct. Any member of Team A may shoot the four free throws for the technical fouls. The results of these free throws will determine if the game is over or going into overtime. COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act. (10-4-1; 10-4-2)

Personally, I would rule the second Technical to be Flagrant.

Why?

Because in the OP, A1 tackled B1!

-Josh

Oh..the OP yeah.

I read into it that BadNews was refering to the 2005 interp as that is what he quoted...my bad.

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

-Josh

If it's a last second situation, like the case play, go with two Ts (one flagrant). If it's not, go with one flagrant T. Each T you assess gets assessed indirectly to the HC for good measure.

Heck, you could also assess a direct T to the coach for "allowing a DQ'd player to participate" (or whatever the specific wording is).

That way, the coach could accompany the player to the locker room. ;)

I think you have to at least go with two Ts. One for entering the court without permission and the other for the unsporting action (which would be flagrant).

You could certainly make an argument for 10-5-3, as Bob said.

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

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.

Maybe nothing. Maybe state sanctions for fighting. The point is, I think, that the tackle needs to be labeled flagrant simply because it is a flagrant foul.

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

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 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."