Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

While I agree, Randy's first post has some flaws, I think we can be a little generous here and interpret "common technical foul" to mean "run-of-the-mill technical foul", as opposed to a flagrant.

Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong by rule, as I was pointing out.

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Hell, Scrappy, you know that.

I really don't care what Randy was trying to say. I do care that what he did say was completely wrong.

[BillyMac]

Looks like Jurassic Referee figured out how to use the boldface key. Great. Just what we need. Hopefully he won't figure out how to use the "blow up the world" key.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

And that's still misleading. By rule, you can have either an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. When someone tells me a foul was a "common" technical foul or a "run-of-the-mill" technical foul. I naturally assume that the foul isn't intentional or flagrant in nature. And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.

If you just stick to the normal rules language, you don't run into confusion like this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.

Wow. A higher percentage than Ivory Soap. I didn't think that was mathematically possible.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.

Got it. A "common player technical foul" is an intentional technical foul.

Is a common player personal foul always an intentional personal foul too, according to the same logic?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

First off, disposal is covered in 4-5-7, 4-42-3, and maybe elsewhere. If you cannot find an answer to a rules question in the book, yourself, I encourage you to ask others for a book citation. Just as you said has been your experience on this one, you are going to get a variety of answers (meaning a number of incorrect ones) if you simply ask others what the rule is, rather than asking them which rule(s), specifically, govern in the situation you are asking about. Our collective reliance on others for the rules, rather than on the book, perpetuates our ignorance--see this year's Point of Emphasis #1, page 66 (2010-2011). Once you find the governing rule(s) in the book, then you can ask others for their interpretation of those specific rules in relation to game situations you have questions about, discuss it with them, and formulate your own interpretation--which may change over time as you gain experience.

Regarding your initial question, I find it unlikely that the pushing you are referring to BEGINS after the goal, 5-1-1. Is it possible you are catching the tail-end of the contact, and it actually began prior to the goal? Consider, a goal isn't scored until the ball is through the net (the net is part of the basket, 1-10 and 6-1, and 5-1-1 says the ball must pass THROUGH the basket (or remain in) in order to be a goal).

If the contact truly is beginning after the goal, that is, at minimum, a common player technical foul, 10-3-7, and possibly a flagrant player technical foul, 10-3-8. You have to decide if the push was the result of the offender simply being unaware that a goal had just been scored, in which case you could ignore it (but that is ignoring a foul, unless you deem it incidental contact), or you might loudly verbalize a warning and keep an eye on that player, or you might blow your whistle and simply warn (your primary responsibility IS safety, afterall), or you might decide that the ball was available and at the disposal of the offended player's team, that your five-second count had commenced and was currently at zero, and call a personal foul, as you have been doing. Let's face it, professionals don't ignore fouls. A foul is a foul. We don't make the rules, experts do. We simply enforce them, and in so doing, ensure the integrity of the game.

In your mind, imagine various reasons or causes a player might commit such a foul, decide in each case what your call should be, and then try to apply those principles to what you see on the court--learning all the time, of course.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, and that's exactly what I did. I did interpret Randy saying it was a common technical foul to mean that it was a "run-of-the-mill technical foul". And that means that Randy's interpretation was completely wrong by rule, as I was pointing out.

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Hell, Scrappy, you know that.

I really don't care what Randy was trying to say. I do care that what he did say was completely wrong.

Ah, the genesis of Randall's rule book parsing rants. He incorrectly quoted the rules in his very first post and Jurassic, as is his wont to do, called him on it. It offended Randall's Mensa superiority complex that this "Facebook" group of officials pointed out his errors and he is out for revenge.