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."

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

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.

Based on which rule? The ball is live.

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.

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



Ok, you caught me. :D

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

Number of free throws
 

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.

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.

Thanks for pointing out #3, I had forgot to put this into the equation.

I'm still judging the second technical foul as flagrant, as this a flagrant act. Whether the repercussions are the same are of no consequence to my decision.

I'll only quibble about point #3 here. Case 10.4.1e gives us leeway to hold the whistle if the other team is driving for a score. If we change the OP slightly, and B1 has a chance to score, I'm going to let him take his shot before I call the T for coming onto the court.

And, if you want to pile on, you could get A1 for standing, for entering the court, and then for the tackle. Three indirects on the coach.

Is there any good reason in the OP to go with two T's? In the case there is a very good reason to, and the commentary on the case indicates that's why the case specifies two T's.

But in the OP...why? Sure, we can. But what useful purpose does it serve?

Dude, I'm already on the fence. Don't do this to me just as I'm considering choosing the other side.

Just to throw another wrench or two into the works... :D

Aren't we supposed to be the calm, disinterested, level-headed ones? I can imagine the opposing coach want 2 or 3 or more T's to teach the kid a lesson. (Well, I can't imagine most coaches as knowing the rules well enough to be able to pick out multiple T-worthy infractions, but I digress...)

Shouldn't we, most than everybody involved, set aside our emotion about the outrageous nature of the act and seek a penalty that is both reasonable and expected, and that fits the crime? Aside from the case play already cited and noted as being a very special case, when else do we assign multiple direct T's to a single person for a single act?

For that game the second T doesn't matter if it's flagrant or not. I'm sure almost everyone would have to write a report if this happened and the governing body might consider an additional penalty for the second flagrant technical - maybe not.

Hold on a minute...A1 fouled out, later in the game....so I am assuming second half.

If B1 has a breakaway layup he should be in front of his own bench. That'd be a looonng way for A1 to realize a breakaway, get off the bench, pass 9 other guys, make a tackle before B1 gets a shot?????

:D

I think it matters whether we assess a flagrant foul. Yes, you'll write a report; and the report will contain details of what happened.

If I were reading a report that mentioned a tackle and no official had assessed a flagrant foul, the inconsistency would disturb me: either the call was right and the report exaggerated the contact, or the report was right and somebody should have assessed a flagrant foul.

Don't you agree that we should call the fouls we see, not the fouls necessary to ensure the correct outcome?

Those were my thoughts. I would certainly question whether someone actually got tackled if a flagrant wasn't called if I were reading the game report.

That case play does not involve anyone coming off the bench nor does it involve actual contact. The conduct described in that case play does not affect the player driving to the basket. I don't think you can extrapolate that play to fit this example. You have to take the play as it comes. I'm not going to have a problem if the player with the ball is in the act of shooting counting the basket (if it goes in), the whole point of the play is that the player with the ball isn't allowed to "drive for a score" if a bench person tackles him!

Yeah: its the rule! We can change the scenario and he can either 1) take the guy out without really leaving the bench (assuming the ball handler is near the sideline) or 2) come onto the court, try to take him out, and get juked (sp??)! Your rationale would lead us to believe we wouldn't have a T in either of these cases since we only had one in the original case.

I agree with you, but since we don't know how this played out, I'm trying to determine what it looked like.

Someone else pointed out that it's most likely the 2nd half, which means A1 is either catching B in his backcourt, or A1 is running quite a ways before he tackles him.

The only way live ball/dead ball matters here is to decide whether or not to count the basket if it's shot. If you kill the ball as soon as A1 enters the court, you can't count the basket.

Now, if it happens in the backcourt (most likely given the scenario) it won't matter. If somehow A1 was DQd in the first half and this happens in the first half, it could be different.

If I see him enter the court there's no way I'm stopping a wide open layup for his opponent to call this T. I'm holding the whistle, because I think the intent of 10.4.1E applies. Otherwise, in an end-of-game situation, a defending bench member would need only enter the court to stop a potential fast break for the opponent; forcing free throws and a defended possession rather than a wide-open layup.

If the two events (entering the court and tackling) happen that close together, it's not an issue, because no one takes a fast break shot from that close to the bench.

I'll resubmit my earlier question, very s l o w l y... Name me any other situation where we impose multiple penalties for one act. Yes, there is a rule against entering the court illegally. There is a rule against tackling an opponent. But show me a rule that says we must give two T's.

I'll wait.

What a creative interpretation. :rolleyes: Of course you would have a T in each of those situations.

I submit that the case play and the OP are similar enough that I will apply the principles of the case play to the OP.

Good luck with that. The case play does not contain any principles for you to apply. It is a very specific ruling on a very specific situation. In that specific case, if you do not give the two T's, B benefits from their actions by immediately winning the game. Thus the comment following it: "Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act."

Unless the OP involves equally dire and immediate circumstances -- and it does not -- there are no "principles from the case" that apply here.

One illegal act = one penalty.

How about any T that also gets charged indirectly to the head coach?

What do I win? :D

I'll take my chances. Of course I'm really not too concerned that this will ever happen.