What would you do?

Jurassic Referee · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 02:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

A1 is fouled in the act of shooting. As he comes to the line, he untucks his shirt. This is not in disgust with the call or a show of emotion. He just untucked to shoot his free throws. What do you do?

I follow case book play 3.3.5SitA.

But that's just me.

Btw, that case play ain't new. They just added a "COMMENT" to it to cover coaches trying to call A TO to keep the player in the game.

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 02:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I follow case book play 3.3.5SitA.

But that's just me.

Btw, that case play ain't new. They just added a "COMMENT" to it to cover coaches trying to call A TO to keep the player in the game.

Doesn't that ruling contradict the illegal jewelry / headband ruling?

In both cases, the transgression can be quickly corrected with no delay. SO, why is one player directed to leave, and the other can remain?

rwest · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't that ruling contradict the illegal jewelry / headband ruling?

In both cases, the transgression can be quickly corrected with no delay. SO, why is one player directed to leave, and the other can remain?

It seems to me that the ruling should have been to remove the player immediately and get a sub for the shooter. Instead they want us to clear the lane and shoot the free throws and then give the ball to team b regardless of whether or not the 2nd free throw is made.

I understand giving the ball to team B since we clear the lane. But what I disagree with is clearing the lane in the first place. It seems a stiff penalty for a uniform violation. Team A loses the chance to get a rebound on the 2nd free throw.

It just doesn't seem to fit with the rule, but I'll enforce it as written, just seems odd to me.

Jurassic Referee · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't that ruling contradict the illegal jewelry / headband ruling?

In both cases, the transgression can be quickly corrected with no delay. SO, why is one player directed to leave, and the other can remain?

Yes ...and I have no idea why they have different and contradictory rulings.

And to be completely honest, I'm not sure that I'd follow that case play anyway if I ever ran into that situation(but don't tell anybody

).

tref · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And to be completely honest, I'm not sure that I'd follow that case play anyway if I ever ran into that situation(but don't tell anybody

).

Oh no he didn't!

rwest · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yes ...and I have no idea why they have different and contradictory rulings.

And to be completely honest, I'm not sure that I'd follow that case play anyway if I ever ran into that situation(but don't tell anybody

).

I wont tell anyone. Your secret safe with me. And I wont post it on a public forum either!

Scratch85 · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:13pm

Is it correct to assume the ensuing throw-in would be on the endline with the ability to run the endline if the last FT was made?

rwest · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Is it correct to assume the ensuing throw-in would be on the endline with the ability to run the endline if the last FT was made?

I would think so. Can't see why not.

bob jenkins · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Is it correct to assume the ensuing throw-in would be on the endline with the ability to run the endline if the last FT was made?

It's not correct to assume that. You should look it up and know it.

(The ruling, however, is correct.)

tjones1 · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 03:20pm

Rules rulz!

BillyMac · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2010, 05:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't that ruling contradict the illegal jewelry/headband ruling?

Does it have to do with a uniform in one case versus equipment in the other case? Just asking.

Camron Rust · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 15, 2010, 03:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Doesn't that ruling contradict the illegal jewelry / headband ruling?

In both cases, the transgression can be quickly corrected with no delay. SO, why is one player directed to leave, and the other can remain?

Seems one is a deliberate action...everyone saw them pull the shirt out. Wearing an illegal item isn't quite the same.

That said, I can also see why you wouldn't send the player out immediately in either case....maybe the coach would have his worst FT shooter pull his shirt out anytime he was fouled!!!!