Unusual and weird situation resulting in ejection

[Freddy]

One calm, deserving dose of 10-3-6f would have probably avoided the whole mess.
Sorry, but this one's on you.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Freddy

One calm, deserving dose of 10-3-6f would have probably avoided the whole mess.
Sorry, but this one's on you.

ART. 6 . . . Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in such a
manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
c. Baiting or taunting an opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
d. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes.
NOTE: Purposely diverting an opponent’s attention by waving is different than
holding or waving the hands near the opponent’s eyes for the express purpose of obstructing the vision so that he/she cannot see.
e. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.
f. Faking being fouled, knowingly attempting a free throw or accepting a foul to which the player was not entitled.
g. Use tobacco or smokeless tobacco.
h. Removing the jersey &/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.

[representing]

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

I'm sorry, but you didn't do it correctly. Let me present a play to demonstrate.

A1 goes up for a shot in the lane, and B1 goes up to defend. B1 blocks it cleanly, knocking it out of bounds. C calls a phantom foul. B coach goes ballistic, so the official Ts the coach.

After shooting the shooting all the shots, the C then approaches the L and asks him what he saw. "It was clean, no contact at all."

The C then decides to correct his error (time frame still applies) and retract the original shooting foul. He wipes away the points because they were unmerited.

Do you think he has rules backing for this?

And I'm sorry, but your rules interpreter shouldn't have to look this up to know you kicked it.

[Adam]

Representing, can you please answer the following question?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A1 goes up for a shot in the lane, and B1 goes up to defend. B1 blocks it cleanly, knocking it out of bounds. C calls a phantom foul. B coach goes ballistic, so the official Ts the coach.

After shooting the shooting all the shots, the C then approaches the L and asks him what he saw. "It was clean, no contact at all."

The C then decides to correct his error (time frame still applies) and retract the original shooting foul. He wipes away the points because they were unmerited.

Do you think he has rules backing for this?

The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

BTW, I would be willing to bet a game check that you would get a different answer from the NFHS.

[representing]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Representing, can you please answer the following question?


The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

BTW, I would be willing to bet a game check that you would get a different answer from the NFHS.

Ok Snaqs, point well taken.

And no, he doesn't have any backing on this by the rules as it doesn't fall under any of the 5 correctable errors.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The concept is similar, as a foul cannot legally be called without contact.

Then how could you advocate calling a block on a flop?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here's my recommendation. If you see any contact, I'd be willing to accept a blocking foul on this.
But I prefer a warning.

Just last week, I had a kid pull this. I was C, and as we were heading the other way I go this attention and told him not to do it again. He pretended he didn't know what I was talking about, but he didn't do it again.

If, after one warning, he does it again, ring him up. It'll stop.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then how could you advocate calling a block on a flop?

I don't advocate it; but I understand some locales prefer it done this way. I've never called a block on this. I no-call it when the player falls with marginal contact. 88% of the time the coach gets the message without me saying a word, and yells at his player to stay in there. 11% off the time, the coach says nothing. The other 1%, I ignore.

If I worked in a locale who wanted it done with a blocking call, they'd only get one and it would come with a verbal warning to the coach as I reported the foul.

While I don't like the idea of calling a phantom foul here, I'm not going to tell an official to go against the accepted practice in his area; no matter how stoopid I think that practice may be.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

88% of the time the coach gets the message without me saying a word, and yells at his player to stay in there. 11% off the time, the coach says nothing. The other 1%, I ignore.

You could have done this a lot faster if you had used a slide rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't advocate it; but I understand some locales prefer it done this way.

While I don't like the idea of calling a phantom foul here, I'm not going to tell an official to go against the accepted practice in his area; no matter how stoopid I think that practice may be.

Is it the accepted practice in your area?

I don't think I've heard of any area recommending that their officials call a block instead of a "T" for flopping. The usual practice seems to be "warn & whack" afaik, especially after the POE's that have come out.

But then again, I've led a sheltered life....

[ibOfficial]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

While I don't like the idea of calling a phantom foul here, I'm not going to tell an official to go against the accepted practice in his area; no matter how stoopid I think that practice may be.

Let me begin with the cliche: "Everybody makes mistakes; that's why they put erasers on pencils." Then let me follow with another cliche: "Remember that what's right isn't always popular... and what's popular isn't always right." As a young and learning official, I am bombarded by both good insight and bad insight, but all in all, rules need to be upheld. I would hope that an associate of mine would not sit back and allow me to do something that was blatantly wrong. I wonder how this "practice in his area" became "accepted..." I'm pretty sure the rules of basketball are consistent throughout the game. I assume you know this.

Last thing, basketball is 1 contest with 3 teams on the court: The home team, visiting team, and our team. Don't put BS in the game, and don't let your partner.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

Ignorance compounded by arrogance is a dangerous combination that will keep you in hot water. Time to add a little humility and some serious book learning to your personality profile.
Good luck with that...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by representing

Look, I understand that I should have T'd him up. I had emailed the Rule Interpreter of our chapter and he told me that it really isn't called in this chapter, or many other chapters in Pennsylvania. He also said that besides that fact, I did do it correctly to his knowledge, but that he would look it up this weekend and let me know.

As for CE, the rule book does not say anything about it having to be only in bonus situations. It covers all unmerited situations. While the intent was for bonus/non-bonus situations, I did do it correctly to say that those FT attempts do not count.

My God, man, you were wrong and simply won't admit it. You simply don't get to define "unmerited free throws" however you want. Words mean things.

[representing]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My God, man, you were wrong and simply won't admit it. You simply don't get to define "unmerited free throws" however you want. Words mean things.

I'm not defining anything, it defines itself!

let me break it down:

definition of merit: something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation (dictionary.com)

in case you (and the some of the others) skipped 1st grade, when you add "un" in front of a word, it means the opposite or not. Hence, unmerited means opposite of or NOT deserved or justified a reward or commendation.

In this case, the free throws were not justified or deserved because no one else besides a coach, player or bench personnel (i.e. trainer) can receive a technical foul. A father (or any other spectators) or officiating crew on table cannot be given a technical foul.

REFERENCES:
Technical fouls: 4-19-5 and 10-1 thru 5
Correctable error on unmerited FT: 2-10-1b

Putting all of this together, it was WRONG of me to T up the father and scorekeeper thinking he was an AC. The FTs were unmerited, because the Technical, which resulted in both FTs, was given to someone who cannot be legally given a technical foul. Because he cannot be given a technical foul, it cannot be official in the book. End result, ejection to that person and continue play at POI.

Can't get any simpler than that. I wasted too much time getting all of this together when I should be sleeping right now, so I'm logging off for the night.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by representing

I'm not defining anything, it defines itself!

let me break it down:

definition of merit: something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation (dictionary.com)

in case you (and the some of the others) skipped 1st grade, when you add "un" in front of a word, it means the opposite or not. Hence, unmerited means opposite of or NOT deserved or justified a reward or commendation.

In this case, the free throws were not justified or deserved because no one else besides a coach, player or bench personnel (i.e. trainer) can receive a technical foul. A father (or any other spectators) or officiating crew on table cannot be given a technical foul.

REFERENCES:
Technical fouls: 4-19-5 and 10-1 thru 5
Correctable error on unmerited FT: 2-10-1b

Putting all of this together, it was WRONG of me to T up the father and scorekeeper thinking he was an AC. The FTs were unmerited, because the Technical, which resulted in both FTs, was given to someone who cannot be legally given a technical foul. Because he cannot be given a technical foul, it cannot be official in the book. End result, ejection to that person and continue play at POI.

Can't get any simpler than that. I wasted too much time getting all of this together when I should be sleeping right now, so I'm logging off for the night.

Unmerited means what the NFHS says it means, not what Webster or you say it means. I'm wasting my time with you, you know everything.

Well, except how to penalize a habitual flopper, apparently.

Oh, and that a technical can (by rule) be called against someone in the stands, if necessary.