Wake Forest vs VA Tech - Dead Ball Fouling
 

Anyone see the game last night?

One minute or so left in the game and VA Tech is winning by ~ 6 points.

Ending goes as typically expected. Wake Scores. VA Tech is fouled. VA Tech makes 1 of 2. Wake scores. VA Tech inbounds and is fouled. VA Tech makes 1 of 2. Wake misses. VA Tech is fouled. etc., etc.

With 23 seconds left Wake makes two free throws and VA Tech is up 5 and inbounding the ball. TWEET! Foul on Wake prior to the ball coming in.

Now, the announcers begin to have a conversation about "dead ball fouls." As in - "This is a smart play to foul and not have any time come off the clock." and "Why don't more teams play good denial defense like this?" One announcer went so far as to say, "The NCAA should make this type of foul a three-shot foul and then this kind of play would stop."

The announcers then quickly pointed out that the next time VA Tech inbounded the ball, Wake didn't emply this strategy (dead ball fouling).

Without crushing the announcers here - Seen it much? Thoughts?

I guess a team could employ the strategy of fouling before the ball was inbounded and not make it intentional. I've personally never seen a team try this strategy nor have I seen any team on TV try it either.

I know that the NBA has an away-from-the-play foul where fouls before the ball is released for the throw-in results in two shots outside of two minutes left in the game. Under two minutes, it's one shot by any player AND the ball back. I don't know if NCAA/HS need to go that route since you don't see teams trying to take advantage.

We play FIBA here in Eastern Canada so this is a non issue. Fouls before the ball has left the inbounders hands are automatically an unsportsmanlike.

Just like just about everything else that used to considered good tough defense. lol

Really, for all fouls? If team A is inbounding the ball and sets an illegal screen is it automatically unsportsmanlike? Likewise, if team B is called for a blocking foul, that's unsportsmanlike as well? If so, seems like a harsh penalty. What does the rule book say specifically? I am not doubting your statement since I do not use FIBA rules.

There was nothing "intentional" about this foul. It was just a solid attempt at denial of the inbounds pass by Wake that became overly aggressive to the point of a foul being called prior to the ball being inbounded.

Yes any foul. Screening, hands, blocking, anything when the ball has not left the inbounders hands is automatic.

ART. 36 UNSPORTSMANLIKE FOUL

Statement
When the ball is out-of-bounds for a throw-in and is still in the hands of the official or is already at the disposal of the thrower-in and at that moment a defensive player on the court causes contact

FIBA Official Interpretations 2008/LK Page 16 of 25
with a player of the team of the thrower-in also on the court and the foul is called, this shall be judged as unsportsmanlike.

Example 1:
A4 has the ball in his hands or at his disposal for a throw-in when B5 causes contact with A5 and a foul is called on B5.

Interpretation:
Because B5 is obviously not making any effort to play the ball and an unsportsmanlike advantage is gained by not allowing the game clock to restart. An unsportsmanlike foul must be called without a warning being given.

I understand the reasoning; however, the implementation would lead me to believe that officials will call these plays differently than they would plays after the ball has been released.

An illegal screen that you might want to get in 'regular' play may get passed on because the punishment seems excessive. A small hold coming off that screen may get passed on too, when it would normally get called out front for the same reason.

I'm sure the directive is to call it the same regardless, but that was the directive when swinging elbows was a T. It has been changed to a violation to attempt to get officials to call it because the T was deemed "too harsh" in many instances.

I don't like it. I prefer the opportunity to use judgement to say "that foul occurred in the normal sequence of events," or, "that foul was intentional."

I agree. And from looking from the FIBA rule book, two unpsortsmanlike calls while get a player disqualifed from a game. From the sounds of it, two illegal screens before the ball is released while get it a player DQed for the rest of the game.

Any 2 unsportsmanlikes and your gone. So if A3 gets called for blocking trying to deny an inbounds early in the game (thats 1), and if he gets tangled up with someone on the fast break making contact from the side or behind when the other player has clear path (thats 2).

These could be the only 2 fouls on the kid in the whole game and DQ'd.

I think that this whole "playing the ball" thing is being taken to literally. It is a good gauge when a team is stopping the clock in the last minute or when a guy rakes a breakaway layup shooter's arms, but "playing the ball" is irrelevant when guarding a player without the ball. Based on this logic, displacing a post player should be unsportsmanlike (or intentional for the American game) because the defender isn't "making any effort to play the ball." Continuing on: every illegal screen isn't an effort to play the ball. This is one of the times where I'm glad I don't work FIBA.

Any foul committed by the defending team. There's no automatic unsportsmanlike foul for the team in control of the ball.

I hope they will change this interpretation.

Ciao

I prefer to consider the meaning of "play the ball" as "play basketball": a screen is "playing basketball", but it may be illegal, so usually a common foul.

And this is the normal interpretation of the phrase, except for that stupid rule about fouls by the defensive players during a throw-in.

Ciao