Whaddya got?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Try this one:

DEAD-BALL LIVE-BALL FOULS

4.19.14 SITUATION:

What type of foul is committed when: (a) during a deadball
period A1 taunts B1; (b) B1 crosses the end line and fouls thrower A1; (c)
immediately after the ball passes through the basket, airborne shooter A1 fouls
B1; or (d) B1 reaches through the end-line boundary and slaps the ball from the
hands of thrower A1. RULING: It is an unsporting technical foul in (a) and an
intentional personal foul in (b). There is no score in (c), as A1 has committed a
player-control foul. The foul in (d) is a technical foul charged to B1.

According to the definiton provided in 4-19-14 an unsporting technical foul is NONcontact, so the taunt has to be free of contact.

Was the "contact" sufficient for a foul all on its own....then I'd agree, have a personal foul. However, you didn't address my earlier point about the contact being incidental and in the presence of other actions warranting a call. The fact that there was contact doesn't make it a personal foul. Only if the contact WAS the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You keep saying that you are giving a T for taunting, but what exactly constituted the taunting? Did the player say something to the opponent? Nope. Did he make a gesture towards him?
Nope.

I do not recall that 10-3-6c Note, says anything about gesturing is the only form of taunting. Now if you can find where that is the only kind of taunting that is approved, then show that to me. Is there a case play that accompanies that and gives such directive?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What he did was jump/land on him. He purposely made CONTACT with an opponent. This is no different than if he had run over and chest-bumped him, or as Scrapper wrote, punched him. The fact is that you are trying to characterize the action of contacting an opponent as taunting. As an unsporting technical foul BY RULE must be NONCONTACT, that is where you are in error.

Can you show me any rule that eliminates any act that is considered a T that cannot involve contact at all other than fighting rules? I do not think you will find such interpretation or ruling from the NF in any literature that suggests that this cannot take place. So if a player dunks on an opponent and he makes contact by putting his nuts directly in the face of the opponent on purpose, you are suggesting that we can only call a PC foul because the player is still considered airborne? Again, find me that ruling and we can go there. You are good at showing 10 year old rulings, so that should be something you can come up with now. There has to be something that supports your “absolute” position here.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As for the "that guy" stuff, that is simply you failing to have an intelligent argument, so you resort to a personal insult. How sad. I'm not going to stoop to such tactics. I'll just stick to discussing the rules.
PS By my count only one other person echoed that thought, so your "plenty here" statement is also incorrect.

Actually it was someone else that quoted me about you being "that guy" and changed my words. I simply said that I do not want to be that guy that makes a ruling that almost no one supports. And I do not know of anyone that would take the position you are taking and making it so black and white where only taunting or T foul involves absolutely no contact. I have been doing this awhile and I am confident that no one I work for or with would have a problem with such ruling. And again you have only made this about me as just about everyone in this thread has suggest that this be a T is what they would call.

On the first page of this thread, I counted 9 people that either alluded to a T or said that they would T Rondo in this case. You came in on this conversation on comment #28 after everyone but one person claimed they would even call a T and that person admitting that they were young and reconsidered their position. And the person that responded right after you also said he would T the Rondo. Again if anyone has made this conversation personal it has been you. I have not seen you respond to anyone else and telling them they are wrong or tell those they need to know the rules or what they should do. I guess I am that powerful that I have that much influence on other grown people that have been officiating for some time to tell them what they should say about this play.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Too bad that you were instructed such. That is incorrect. Fighting is a flagrant technical foul when done during a dead ball, but a flagrant personal when done during a live ball. See these two case plays.

In the first the ball is dead following the dunk. Then there is a noncontact unsporting T for the taunt, which becomes an act of fighting when the opponent retaliates with the punch.

FIGHTING

4.18.2 SITUATION:

A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and
punches A1. RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul
for fighting and are disqualified. A1’s action is defined as fighting when the taunting
caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (10-3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)

In this second one, there is nothing to make the ball dead prior to the first illegal contact, so the fouls are personal.

8.7 SITUATION A:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul.
While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously.

RULING:

Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point
of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in
from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-
possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10
Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

DEAD WRONG!!!

Not exactly correct. While there is a casebook play that agrees with you, the rule book has a contradiction on this point.

10-3-8 says, in very simple words, that fighting is a technical foul with no distinction on whether the ball is live or dead or whether there is contact or not.

10-3 Player Technical. Art. 8....Be charged with fighting.

4-18 defines fighting and further says that fighting occurs whether there is contact or not and can occur during a live ball or a dead ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Try this one:

DEAD-BALL LIVE-BALL FOULS

4.19.14 SITUATION:

What type of foul is committed when: (a) during a deadball
period A1 taunts B1; (b) B1 crosses the end line and fouls thrower A1; (c)
immediately after the ball passes through the basket, airborne shooter A1 fouls
B1; or (d) B1 reaches through the end-line boundary and slaps the ball from the
hands of thrower A1. RULING: It is an unsporting technical foul in (a) and an
intentional personal foul in (b). There is no score in (c), as A1 has committed a
player-control foul. The foul in (d) is a technical foul charged to B1.

According to the definiton provided in 4-19-14 an unsporting technical foul is NONcontact, so the taunt has to be free of contact.

It doesn't have to be free from contact, just that the contact is not the reason that the foul is being called.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

On the first page of this thread, I counted 9 people that either alluded to a T or said that they would T Rondo in this case...
Peace

All 9 of those came before I was pointed out he was still an airborne shooter, which changed the whole direction of this thread pretty significantly. Count the ones after page one and you will see Nevada has a pretty good following.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by rsl

All 9 of those came before I was pointed out he was still an airborne shooter, which changed the whole direction of this thread pretty significantly. Count the ones after page one and you will see Nevada has a pretty good following.

You act as if it were a fact that he was an airborne shooter. Once he converted the ring to a chin-up bar, that time was passed.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You act as if it were a fact that he was an airborne shooter. Once he converted the ring to a chin-up bar, that time was passed.

If you call the T for hanging on the rim- not if you call an unsporting T for the contact.

As several pointed out, that is the rub exactly. The airborne shooter exception was not intended for this play, but technically applies. That is why I think either an unsporting T or an intentional personal would be OK. The penalties are nearly the same (inbound spot differs, and the T would count against rondo, but in both cases white get two shots and the ball), so I think you could reasonably sell either one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rsl

All 9 of those came before I was pointed out he was still an airborne shooter, which changed the whole direction of this thread pretty significantly. Count the ones after page one and you will see Nevada has a pretty good following.

And that should tell you something. The fact that multiple people did not even consider your scenario when at first glance is telling to me. Actually I seriously doubt that if I showed this play at a camp that more than one person would make the same observation.

Originally Posted by rsl

If you call the T for hanging on the rim- not if you call an unsporting T for the contact.

As several pointed out, that is the rub exactly. The airborne shooter exception was not intended for this play, but technically applies. That is why I think either an unsporting T or an intentional personal would be OK. The penalties are nearly the same (inbound spot differs, and the T would count against rondo, but in both cases white get two shots and the ball), so I think you could reasonably sell either one.

Again if the contact that took place even warranted a foul maybe that would be a good point or would technically apply. But that does not seem the case at all as no player was displace and even both players ended up on their feet (or one on the back of the other). It is hard to justify in my opinion a foul here other than an act that is unsporting by rule. And no one has been able to show that taunting is completely void of contact. Again it is not about the contact, it is about the fact Rondo tried to embarrass the opponent by getting on his shoulders. If he does not do that then there is nothing on this play, even hanging on the rim as he would be allowed to do that with someone under him.

Peace

[rsl]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that should tell you something. The fact that multiple people did not even consider your scenario when at first glance is telling to me. Actually I seriously doubt that if I showed this play at a camp that more than one person would make the same observation.

Agreed. I said earlier that on the floor I would have called an unsporting T and would not have even noticed he was an airborne shooter.

But, once you do notice in a discussion about rules on an officiating forum, it does make a difference. And leads to ten pages of discussion...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rsl

Agreed. I said earlier that on the floor I would have called an unsporting T and would not have even noticed he was an airborne shooter.

But, once you do notice in a discussion about rules on an officiating forum, it does make a difference. And leads to ten pages of discussion...

Just because there are a certain number of pages does not mean that this discussion is completely relevant. If that was the case most of the things we talk about here no one would ever try to have an extended conversation about. And I certainly do not think there would be much discussion with the experienced officials I know about this topic. And they certainly would not be debating PC foul vs T very long that is for sure. Because someone that is well respected would mention common sense and this kind of discussion would be over. I think there are individuals making this more difficult, not a real debate of what the intent of the rules are in this area.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

You act as if it were a fact that he was an airborne shooter. Once he converted the ring to a chin-up bar, that time was passed.

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

When are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

when are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Peace

+1

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why? Does he no longer fit the definition in 4-1-1?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When are we going to start talking real world officiating and stop talking about his made up rulebook/discussion board officiating?

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

+1

In my defense, I have already said twice now that I can understand why people want this to be a technical foul, or would call it as a technical foul (even if they know that technically, it's a personal foul), and that there's not an observer in the world who would ding you for calling it a technical foul. I get it, I really do. It really really feels like a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call.

My only contribution to this thread is to point out that, BY RULE, (and contrary to many of the early posts in the thread) this is a personal foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In my defense, I have already said twice now that I can understand why people want this to be a technical foul, or would call it as a technical foul (even if they know that technically, it's a personal foul), and that there's not an observer in the world who would ding you for calling it a technical foul. I get it, I really do. It really really feels like a technical foul. A technical foul is the expected call.

My only contribution to this thread is to point out that, BY RULE, (and contrary to many of the early posts in the thread) this is a personal foul.

Not sure how it is a personal foul when no part of the contact would be considered a foul in any part of the game. No displacement, neither player prevented from normal movement, just one player landing on their shoulders after a dunk to embarrass them (what other reason does Rondo land on him for). Even if it was accidental, you separate them and move on, but this was done on purpose IMHO. It is not technically a personal foul unless there is some displacement. And until I see a ruling on these specifics then there is no way you can say this is "technically" a PC foul. Again, I do not see how this play was intended to be a personal foul of any kind when all the interpretations with such a play do not include this action.

Peace