A fellow official asked me about a situation that happened during one of his games recently. I advised him what I would have done...but, told him I would get some "second" opinions from "experts" on this forum.

H.S. Boys J.V. Contest:
Team A has the ball in their front court. Player A1 sets a screen in the key and on the endline. Player B1 sees the screen and trys to avoid it by running on the out of bounds side of the endline. A1 sticks his arm out, in a "clothes line" manner, and catches B1 just under his chin knocking him down.
What do ya' got?

RD

JV game, huh?
Well, if I am the lead, I call only the contact foul, which is either a common foul (illegal screen), an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul. It would depend on how severe I thought the contact/action was.
Given your description, I most likely call an intentional personal foul.
Now by rule, it seems that the play is a simultaneous foul. Even though one is technical and the other is personal. The kid who ran out of bounds gets a T for unauthorized leaving of the court and the kid who clothes-lined him gets the personal foul. I think this is a gap in the rules, too. 4-19-9 seems to only address the cases where both fouls are personal or both fouls are technical.
So if we straight by the book, a foul on each and no free throws, and the ball could be put in play by the AP arrow at either the endline or division line. I can't tell which place to do the throw-in since one foul was technical and the other was not.
I don't think this play is too far fetched, but I do think the ruling is very strange. Great question!
PS What if we have a foul occur by team A on the court and at the same time the coach of team B is screaming at the officials and is assessed a technical foul? Let's say that each foul is whistled simultaneously by different officials?

False Double Foul...administer in the order they happened.(Get together with your partner...one happened before the other)
Coach was probably screaming because his player got fouled...soooooo
Team B shoots if they are in the bonus or the foul was a shooting foul....with clear lanes....then Team A shoots the "T"s...give the ball to Team A for a throw in at the division line opp. the table.

RD
I"ll get back to you on your reply to my question...

[Edited by RookieDude on Nov 10th, 2002 at 07:47 AM]

RD,
I see your point, but don't quite agree with your characterizing either of these situations as false double fouls. Remember new rule defining simultaneous fouls says that the fouls by both teams occur "at approximately the same time" and that is what I think your friend's senario most closely resembles. My PS response was supposed to illustrate another example of a simultaneous foul situation in which one foul was technical and the another was personal. It was the only such situation I could come up with.
I think this could be a splitting hairs, but if we used your solution to my PS and my partner and I decided that the coach's T happened first, wouldn't we now have a dead ball, and hence ignore the foul by the player unless it is intentional or flagrant?
This is why I tried to make it clear that, for theoretical purposes as we probe these foul rules, the fouls happened too close together to tell which happened first.
We both know that in real life someone always fouls first when two fouls happen, but we do still call double fouls in games. Not everything is called a false double, right? The most common double fouls that I see are two post players both pushing and shoving for position (double personal) and two players having words or getting into a shoving match (double technical). If A pushes B and then B pushes A during a dead ball, the officials always call this a double T, I've never seen it called a false double T, even though it was obvious that one player shoved first and the other retaliated.
Do you agree with that?
PPS Look at what you answered to my pre-game tech situation when one team didn't have the starters marked and the other started the wrong players! You didn't make the case that one infraction happened before the other, you just said simultaneous techs!

[Edited by Nevadaref on Nov 10th, 2002 at 08:31 AM]

Do not call the Technical to begin with.
 

Unless the defensive or offensive player is so far out of bounds that not a single individual in the gym can tell what happen, that might be the only time that you should call a T. Other than that, leave this T alone. Just because the player is out of bounds does not warrant a T in my opinion. Penalize the screener for his actions. The screener's actions seems more obvious and if anything caused the defender to move the way he did. If you do it that way you will not have to worry about all the false doubles and simultaneous foul situations. Do not make this that difficult. ;)

Peace

Here is another point about this play. If the player went out of bounds intentionally and you decidde to call the "T" that is fine. If that happened before the contact foul then the ball is already dead. Therefore the contact foul should either be ignored or it is actually a technical foul. That would make this a false double technical foul.

You can have simultaneous technical fouls and you can have simultaneous personal fouls. You cannot have simultaneous fouls that are comprised of a technical and a personal. Also, it can't be a double foul, since at least one attribute of a double foul is missing. And that is the definition of a false double foul.

Also, you're correct that you can't call both unless you call the T for going OOB first and then call the second foul as a technical foul that is either flagrant or intentional.

Now, to answer the question, I would have a personal foul on A1. I would not call the T for going OOB unless the player had previously done this during the game and been warned about it.

There's no need to look for things to call.

There's no such thing as a false double technical foul. If a T was called on a player and then before the clock started, another T was called, it would simply be a false double foul.

If called the way you describe and the way I described above, I would probably rule this as simultaneous technical fouls. I think it meets the criteria.

Great Comments
 

Well, back to work on the ol' night shift tonight and I see there has been some very good comments on this thread today.
Thank you for your responses.

Just to clarify Nevadaref, when I stated False Doulble Foul, I was talking about your PS sitch not my original sitch. But, you made some very good points.

This is what I advised my fellow official of how I would have handled the out of bounds runner and the foul by the screener:
<li> No call on the player running out of bounds (since there was no whistle before the contact by the screener)
<li> Intentional Personal foul on the screener for clothes-lining the player running beside the endline out of bounds.

I also stated that if he wanted to get "technical"...no pun intended...the official could have called a "T" for the player leaving the court, thus creating a dead ball situation. Then the subsequent "clothes-line" would have to be ruled as an Intentional Technical foul since it was during a dead ball.
This would then be Simultaneous Techs...no shots...go to the arrow for the throw in at the division line opposite the table. (Some might say that the throw in would be at the endline because of the Intentional foul, but Simultaneous Techs are handled differently.)

I think that is basically what BsktBallRef stated...which makes me feel good since he is one of those "experts" whom I was looking for an opinion from. ;)....whew, stand back, it's getting deep now...

RD

RD,
Yes, it has been a good discussion with many people making some good points. Personally, I have enjoyed this forum and think the people who respond on it are quite knowledgeable. Thanks to all.
That being said, I have been persuaded by your arguments that your friend's play is a simultaneous technical foul situation.
Two things really make it clear for me, so I will share them:
1. We all seem to agree that simultaneous fouls cannot be one technical and one personal. They must be either both technical or both personal.
2. I remembered my fundamentals. Page 73 Basketball Rules Fundamentals #16 The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

Therefore, whether the officials blows the whistle before or after the player is clothes-lined, the ball is already dead. (It became dead when the player ran out-of-bounds, thus committing a technical foul. I suppose it must be unsporting behavior to leave the court for an unauthorized reason, and that is why this is a technical foul even though it happens during a live ball!) So we now know that the contact foul is a dead ball foul and is a technical foul. Clearly, we all feel that the contact was excessive and thus meets the definition of an intentional foul and should be called during the dead ball. Since, these fouls happened "at approximately the same time" they are simultaneous Ts.

Now to RD, I also think you are correct that my PS situation is a false double foul even though I was trying to make them simulataneous fouls. The reasons are similar to above. 1. simul fouls cannot be one of each (T and P).
2. It does really matter when the whistles blow as the ball becomes dead with the first foul.

I agree with your reasoning that the coach is yelling because he wants a foul called so it is easy to say that actually happened first.
Finally, that means in my PS play, we do shoot free throws and then give the ball to the team whose coach was not charged with the T for throw-in at the division line.

Lastly, I'm glad to see that we all would have called the play the same way in real life (ignore the OOB and only call the intentional), despite the rules discussion that is only useful for a test question.

Again thanks to all. It has been thought-provoking.

confused
 

Nobody is going to toss the kid who clotheslined another right under the chin? If that isn't flagrant, what is?

Re: confused
 

I'd have to see it PA Coach. If it was vicious, he's gone. If it just looked like a bone-headed reaction with no real force behind it, personal foul.

Hmmm,
 

In 40 years of watching, coaching and officiating basketball I have NEVER seen a technical foul called for a player illegally leaving the court.

I have read this entire thread and decided this logic would be forced to used in all games:

If a technical foul is called for the player leaving the court to avoid a screen then all officials would need to call technicals on players that say, try to save an errant pass and jump into the crowd.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It would certainly appear to be OOO to call a technical for a player avoiding contact by leaving the floor as described.

Please set me straight.

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tim C,
Following the rules is rarely being an OOO. ;)

Going out of bounds to save a ball and going out of bounds to avoid a screen are different scenarios and both are covered in one set of books, unlike baseball where opinions, practice and experts vary with more frequency. :rolleyes:

mick

I can't ever remember seeing a T called for unauthorized leaving of the court. And I don't think that it would be warranted in this case either. I would like to know what would be an unauthorized reason? I've seen it said here that running out to save a ball is okay, but running around a screen is not. Where is the line drawn on this rule? I would think that the purpose of this rule is to avoid deception on one team over another. I remember seeing a play on TV where a kid ran out of bounds and through a set of doors on the left side of the court, ran down a hall and came in through another set of doors on the right side of the court. To me, that would be when the rule would be used, not for trying to avoid a screen.

Hmmm,
 

Mick:

I appreciate the humor but the question still lingers:

"Would you call a "T" for a player leaving the court illegally when attempting to get around a screen?"

I really need to know . . . again, history DOES NOT make this a normal practice.

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tim C,
In real life, and a real game, I would say, : "Don't do that anymore!", but I would not repeat the statement.

As you know, regardless of the game, the higher the level, the less we have to use the strange rules.

The highest level that I've seen it called is Boy's HS Varsity. The violation was by a freshman point-guard who went out-of-bounds at the Free throw the lane on one side of the floor, continued running until he got on the other side of the lane outside the arc to receive a pass.

The kid got whacked and learned a rule.
Had the Kid not received the pass for the "3", the whole deal may have been overlooked. ;)

mick

The purpose of the rule is to deny a player from gaining an advantage by illegally using the OOB area.The most common occurence is laid out in Casebook play 10.3.4SitB.The usual way that this play is handled is by warning the player not to do it again-i.e.get back on the court immediately.If he/she is stupid enough to do it a second time,they deserve a T. Note that some coaches teach OOB set plays like this because they know officials are hesitant to make the call by the book(T).A quick word to the coach will usually get them to run the play properly and legally.

I can't ever remember seeing a T called for unauthorized leaving of the court. And I don't think that it would be warranted in this case either. I would like to know what would be an unauthorized reason? I've seen it said here that running out to save a ball is okay, but running around a screen is not. Where is the line drawn on this rule? I would think that the purpose of this rule is to avoid deception on one team over another. I remember seeing a play on TV where a kid ran out of bounds and through a set of doors on the left side of the court, ran down a hall and came in through another set of doors on the right side of the court. To me, that would be when the rule would be used, not for trying to avoid a screen.

I called it once.

Kid went and sat on the bench, then "remembered" he was in the game and was "miraculously" (sp) open at the other end for a easy cherry picked layup.

This raises a discussion I believe we may have had last year. To what degree is the official responsible to be sure that there are 5 from each team on the court. I always try to count players before the ball is put in play, but I don't see this listed as a general responsibility of the official.

In Brian's situation above, to what degree is the official responsible for checking the number of players on the court before starting play?

We started with 5. He sat down, whuch I have no problem with as long as he is down until the next deadball. But, he came back and got an easy bucket.

Wack.

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tim, and GFS --

The interpretation of the rule is the same in FED and NCAA.

The wording is better in NCAA: Deceptively leaving the playing court and returning at a more advantageous position for an unauthorized reason.

AR8 -- Screen, O-player goes out-of-bounds, returns on other side of lane: Ruling: T.

AR9 -- Screen, D player sees screen, steps OOB to avoid contact: Ruling: Not a T (generally)

(Obviously, I haven't typed in the full ARs.)

On the screen, I try to stop it the first time I see it (officials can set screens, too. ;) ).

Later on, I'd guess I'd call it (I've not seen a team attempt it after I told them to stop).

HS Boys Varsity game last season - 4th quarter, close game. We called a time-out. During the time-out the coach told a kid to sub in. The kid didn't get the message, so when play started again we only had four kids on the floor. The opposing team's coaches (all 3 of them) literally jumped out of their chairs and started screaming about the situation. Fans behind their bench joined in. The refs called a T. I am not kidding, their fans started dancing in the stands. It was really quite bizarre.

Not to mention quite wrong . . .

Okay, Mark, I'm an ignorant howler monkey, so I'll bite. :-)

From the discussion on this post I assumed it was because we only had four players on the floor. Where did I go wrong?

Officials Manual--page 86 #379--reads as follows "Officials shall see that each team has five players on the court. The offical responsible for putting the ball in play shall be responsible for counting the players on both teams".Notice the first word is officials and has an S on the end. I say this in my pre-game but add, if the other two officials are not holding up their hands to withhold play, they are just as responsible.

While the rules specify that a team consists of 5 players
there is no penalty for accidentally playing with fewer than
5. The T occurs when A5 realizes he should be on the floor
and runs in unbeckoned.

BTW1: IMO putting the ball in play with the wrong number of
players on the floor is always the fault of the refs on the
floor. It aint hard to count to 5 twice.

BTW2: Don't you coach little kids, like 8th graders? What
kind of behavior is that for parents? Sounds as bad as
little league

EDIT Oops, never mind, just reread your original post.
In this case the refs should hang their collective heads
in shame.


[Edited by Dan_ref on Nov 12th, 2002 at 10:12 AM]

IMHO
 

It is the responsibility of the officials to make sure that each team has the correct number of players on the floor before making the ball live.

Good officials always make sure of this . . . and I agree (if that is important to anyone) a team may select to play with less that five for their own reason.

Re: IMHO
 

This is true only if less than 5 are available. If he's got a sub on the bench, the sub must play.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I feel better.

Reforming myself is awfully tough, though. Especially after the last coaching clinic I attended, where we were required to take the "Effective Arguing with Referees when Your Team is Playing Like Crap" seminar.

I do like the book that came with it, though: "Coaching Cliches that Encourage Referees to Call the Game Your Way". You know, like "Call it both ways". In fact, I muttered that to a ref recently, and was immediately embarrassed. Y'all are ruining all my fun!

While you're required, as Chuck pointed out, to play five (i.e., you can't hold back on a sub), there is no penalty for only having 4 players on the court at any given time. There is, however, a penalty for having more than 5.

Why the T?
 

In response to the question by theboys about his team receiving a T for only having 4 players in the game:
Yes, good officials count and make sure you have 5 before starting play, but it is your job as well.
Now if you want to go "BY THE BOOK" the following rule justifies the T your team received:
10-1-9 Fail to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission.

Notice that the T has nothing to do with running off the bench and returning during play. If it is after a time-out or intermission, this is the proper rule for the T, if a player mistakenly goes and sits on the bench thinking he has been replaced when no substitute has entered and there was not a time-out or intermission, the leaving the court for an unauthorized reason 10-3-4 is the correct rule.

Lastly, I will point out that 10-1-9 is a TEAM technical and 10-3-4 is a PLAYER technical. Bottom line--if you are going to call it, at least get the rule straight!

I disagree with you, NevadaRef. This rule is not meant to penalize a team when mistakenly they only return 4 players to the floor. If the player runs onto the floor after the ball has come live, then it's a T. Otherwise, it's not.

It seems like this came up like year in some state championship game. End of the game, losing team down by one was trying to foul a poor foul-throw shooting player on the other team. The poor shooter left the court to avoid being fouled and got hit with a Tech. Other team hits both FTs and wins the state.

BBR,
You are a great help on this board and normally give excellent answers. However, in this case I would like you to support your opinion with evidence from the rule book. IMHO the wording of the rule simply does not support your posting. The intent is to prevent delay by sending out a couple of players while a couple more hang back at the bench for either extra rest or more instruction and then one more comes out, etc. meanwhile, the ref has to wait for the team to have 5 players on the court (officials manual #379). The T for 10-1-9 should be called at this time if we are strictly adhering to the rule.
Now your preventative officiating techniques may rationalize that if that late player(s) do not participate in the play, you don't call the T. However, we both know that how we enforce the rules and what they really say are two different things.

If the officials resume play with 6 players on the floor from a team, it's our screw-up as well as the player and the coach's. The team has gained an advantage and it's a T because you can only play with 5 players.

If the officials resume play with 4 players on the floor from a team, it's our screw-up as well as the player and the coach's. But the team has not gained an advantage and it's not a T since the player never returned to the floor. If the player doesn't return and play is resumed, then the game hasn't been delayed, has it?

The rule is to prevent a player from delaying in returning and gaining an advantage, such as sneaking down to his basket form his bench, unseen. 10.1.9 cites this play. The purpose of the rule is not to penalize a team that mistakenly only sends 4 players back out.

Post this question in a new thread and see how many of the veterans agree with calling a T for playing with only 4 players.