Player Steps on Other Player
 

Had this in the final minutes of an intramural game that had gotten out of hand. Player got on his hands on knees in lane and his teammate stepped on his back and launched off of it to dunk.

I whistled the GAME dead at that point, but is there technically a problem with that?

Technical foul

10-3-6e: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes acts such as climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.

10-3 Player Technical

A player shall not:

Art. 6...Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to acts or conduct such as:

e. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.

Penalty: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

If you really wanted to be tough on it, call the T on both of them, one for climbing, the other for lifting.

Would there be a T handed to both players?

I was even tougher; I ended the game.

Camron:

The play in the OP is my play from years ago in a boys' 16U game in the NW Ohio Regional of the now defunct Ohio Sports Festival. It was late in the game and Team A was getting its head handed to the on a platter when A1 (dunker) and A2 did exactly what the players did in the OP. I whacked both players for NFHS R10-S3-A6e and then I whacked A1 for dunking a dead ball, :D.

MTD, Sr.

And was subsequently given the OOO Lifetime Achievement Award, which was then renamed the MTD Sr. trophy in his honor.

It's true, it's true....

I could see this being okay for an intramural league, but for high school I wouldn't go that route. Whack both of them and finish the game.

Not by me. How can you justify giving out 2 "T"s for 1 act without specific rules instructions to do so?

Could the rule be read to say that it's a player technical for a player to 1.) Climb on; or 2.) to help lift a teammate...since you had both the climbing (the climbing being the step on the player's back) and the helping to lift a teammate (getting on all fours and)? Even though this is a singular acts, there are two portions to the act. I'm not entirely convinced either way how to call it.

If you're going for one T, who are you charging it to?

1) Yup, you're certainly right that a strict reading of that particular rule would allow you to issue 2 "T"s, one each to the lifter and liftee. However, is that really the purpose and intent of the rule? Most rulings are issued using the philosophy of 1 penalty for 1 act. If you use the search function, you'll probably find that we've discussed this exact play already close to a dozen times over the years. Iirc, and if I'm not someone can correct me, the general consensus has always been to just charge one technical foul. Two is overkill.

2) I never had or seen this play but.....whenever there's a choice to be made between 2 players as to who should get the foul, I always give it to the shorter player. But that's just me....(heeheeheehee)

HAHA...I can go with that! :D

APG:

JR is correct about only charging one TF in this play. The play I had was during the NW Regional of the Ohio Sports Festival in which the competition was not better than H.S. CYO basketball. I stretched the interpretation of the rule because of the level of competition and because I had had enough of Team A's nonsense throughout of the game. Besides it makes a great war story.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I put this type of play in the Barking Dog category.

It's like when the entire bench rises to complain about a call. The best response is 1 T because it's a single act.