Sub for the shooter
Team A is up by 1 late in the game.
A is inbounding the ball, and B is looking to foul. A34 is fouled after getting the ball, and A is in the bonus, so we will shoot 1 and 1. We are all lined up, with A34 ready to shoot the front end. He looks perfectly fine. B calls timeout. DUring the timeout, A's coach comes over and says "My player got poked in the eye, and will need a sub - can I send in a sub to shoot his free throw(s)?" I know A34 is a bench player, he isn't very good, and he looked perfectly fine to me - certainly did not see him get poked in the eye or anywhere else on the play. I tell the coach that no, A34 would have to shoot his own free throws. Coach kind of grins and says ok. A34 hits them both, A wins the game after some small amount of additional drama not relevant to the situation. So - should I have let him sub? Is it my place to make any kind of judgement call on a reported injury? He didn't make an issue out of it, but what if he had insisted that A34 could not come back in the game? I honestly and truly think that A34 was not at all injured, and they were seeing if they could sneak in a better free throw shooter. I thought it at the time, I still think it right now. |
If the coach is willing to teach his players to be dishonest for this purpose, well, it's deplorable but there's nothing you can do. If he tells you his player is injured, he's injured. For all you know, he got injured by a teammate reaching for a water bottle during the timeout huddle. Don't question it. If you have doubts, report it to the state afterwards, but there's no way I'd make a player shoot when his coach tells me he's injured. Too much risk for zero real reward.
|
If a coach tells us a player is injured or sick we have to take their word for it. Unfortunately you were wrong not to allow the sub. I know where you're coming from and since the coach simply grinned it seems apparent to me that his dishonesty was revealed. A "real" coach would have bucked you more on your decision if his player was truly injured.
|
Nothing else to add... so... how I'll add this:
B should have "held" an A cutter before the ball became touched in bounds. That way, no time comes off the clock. |
Quote:
4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
B just has to play poor defense for a blink. A legitimate INT foul would look much worse. I had it happen once in a game an hour away. When I realized what happened, the former coach in me said "great strategy". |
Quote:
4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent. |
Quote:
The intent was to steal the ball, when B knowingly has a low success rate. The outcome is the clock not starting. As long as it's a legitimate attempt, imho, calling and INT is an incorrect call. FIBA does have a rule to address this, but only in the last 2 minutes, and only while the ball is still in the thrower-in's hands. In FIBA, this is by rule their nearest equivalent of a cross between a T and an INT. In Fed, we still use our judgment as to what type of foul to call. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And Splute, the rule says specifically designed to keep the clock from starting. That doesn't mean any foul. We have to use our judgement. It would be very easy for a defender to make this play look "legitimate." Realistically, the only way this type of intentional foul is going to be called is if it's blatant. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not automatically intentional. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22am. |