![]() |
Climbing on opponent to gain greater height
Rule 10-4-D climbing on or lifting teamate to gain greater height.
Penalty - player technical. I called this once during a jr high rec league end-of-year all star game. One kid got on his hand and knees and the other kid stepped on him and then dunked. I blew the whistle for a T and the heads of league jumped in too and yelled at the kids. It was actually kind of funny. I ended up just giving one T but after seeing a post on here I think I should have T'd up both kids(in that example) but for the event it was fine. My post concerns the a potential glitch in a player gaining an advantage. Situation is; A1 is shooting behind A2 screen. B2 jumps and uses his left hand on A2s shoulder to jump extra high and block A1's shot. I believe by rule all we have is a common foul on b2 against a2. This does not seem extreme enough in this instance. Also, this is a very hard call to see, especially in two person. The on ball official should be focused on the airborne shooter and may have trouble seeing the left hand of the defender and the off ball official should be looking elsewhere. I know there is no extra penalty for tricking an official but it makes it feel more severe(think soccer). Is my ruling accurate? If so do you think the rule should be changed so that this would also be a player technical or leave alone? |
My first thought: intentional.
|
Quote:
I know that you won't say "not a basketball play." ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The penalty applies to the one unfair act, which happened to involve two players collaborating. I think the rule singles out this specific act for explicit treatment precisely in order to prevent the calling of 2 T's, which we might think to do since it involves 2 players. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Here's one discussion......
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-teammate.html http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...call-ever.html Note that: 1) the case play (10-3.10SitD) that I referenced above that outlines the FED philosophy of penalizing the end result instead of applying 2 penalties for 1 act was new about 3 or 4 years ago....after the 2 discussions above. That case play fortifies the consensus of 1 "T" for 1 act. 2) MTD Sr. and I have been disagreeing with each other for one helluva long time.:D |
Quote:
If I'm left to analyze this particular case, I'd go with penalizing the climber. There's nothing wrong with getting on all fours (unless you have the ball). The infraction isn't committed until someone else steps on his back. It's too bad there's no such thing as a multiple technical foul -- one free throw for each -- as that might be the more "just" way of handling it. |
Quote:
The player technical is charged for "climbing on or lifting a teammate...": so yes, it's the one who climbs who is guilty of the infraction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01pm. |