![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
I think he is also asking if it is alright that the crew decided to call B35 for goaltending only after B44 was T'd up for smacking the backboard.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
For NFHS, the ball is dead after the GT, no matter when they blow the whistle. So 10-3-4b cannot apply, and no T should be assessed.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Thoughts?
__________________
I gotta new attitude! Last edited by tref; Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:00pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
I would give the benefit of the doubt to the slapper if the ball is in the backboard area before I called an unsporting T. |
|
|||
Makes sense! I just wanted to put it out there, that a try doesnt have to be involved for it to be unsporting.
__________________
I gotta new attitude! |
|
|||
No, but since a try was involved in the OP, and nothing else in the OP suggests unsporting behavior, I would not assess a TF under 10-3-6 (either).
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
I'll take a crack at this from a Fed perspective.
The attempted block by B22 does not end the try (4-41-4). B35's block is goaltending (4-22). Based on the description (blocked), I assume the ball had no further possibility of entering the basket ending the try. B44's smack of the backboard is not a technical foul as there is no try in flight (10-3-4b). The officials should have gotten together during the dead ball and determined that the goaltending had caused the try to end and awarded the points under the principle that the violation had occurred before the foul (indeed caused the activity to no longer be a foul). As long as there wasn't a significant delay (more than a couple of seconds) between the goaltending and the whistle, I wouldn't consider this correcting an error. If the T is actually for unsporting behavior rather than slapping the backboard, I again think the proximity of the stoppage to the violation allows the officials to make the call after conferencing as I don't believe the time has expired to call the violation yet. (Thus it is not yet an error.) |
|
|||
good call on the goaltending and on the unsporting T for slapping the backboard. I'm sure there wasn't more than a second elasped when the goaltending was missed, maybe just a slow whistle!
![]()
__________________
DETERMINATION ALL BUT ERASES THE THIN LINE BETWEEN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE POSSIBLE! |
|
|||
I don't have my FED books handy, but I don't think that's the correct parsing of the rule (iirc, it's one of those rules with multiple "or" clauses and it could be unclear to which the "while" clause applies).
|
|
|||
Thanks
Thanks for your input!! The crew was fortunate that the 'C' blew his whistle for the smack of the backboard!! If not, the game would have continued without a goaltending or a 'T'. IF Blue 44 did not slap the backboard, the crew would have missed the goaltend. The 'C' did not blow his whistle for goaltending, just for the smacking of the backboard.
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Quote:
From POE #4 on backboard slapping from the 2008-09 FED rule book.... "The rules specify that intentionally slapping or striking the backboard is a technical. The spirit and intent of the rule is to penalize a player for drawing attention to themselves or as a means of venting frustration." Iow it's a judgment call...and the slap in the OP also has to be a judgment call. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goaltending | Referee24.7 | Basketball | 10 | Fri Jan 09, 2009 08:56am |
Goaltending | jc147119 | Basketball | 3 | Tue Dec 30, 2008 05:14pm |
Goaltending or not? | ofishe8r | Basketball | 14 | Thu Feb 28, 2008 03:15pm |
Goaltending? | actuary77 | Basketball | 26 | Sun Oct 29, 2006 04:25pm |
goaltending | Matt S. | Basketball | 1 | Sat Jan 29, 2000 10:17pm |