Whaddya got?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then explain 10.3.7?

Peace

In 10.3.7, A1 has already returned to the ground and so is no longer an airborne shooter.

That's really the crux of the entire thread. Do you think that the intentional contact during a dead ball is ALWAYS a technical foul? Or do you believe that the airborne shooter exception in 4-19-1 also applies to dead ball periods?

I don't see any reason to say that 4-19-1 only applies to live balls. It certainly doesn't say that in the rules. We just normally think of it that way. Just because this play doesn't fit into how we "normally" call contact on or by an airborne shooter, doesn't mean the rule stops applying in those non-normal situations. JMHO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In 10.3.7, A1 has already returned to the ground and so is no longer an airborne shooter.

Let me ask you, scrapper:
Live ball (let's say it's transition time) situation, A1 and B1 get fed up with each other and square off with some chest bumps.

What's your call?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me ask you, scrapper:
Live ball (let's say it's transition time) situation, A1 and B1 get fed up with each other and square off with some chest bumps.

What's your call?

Double foul

Seriously, if it's "a" chest bump while they're mostly jawing, I'm going with double T's. But if they are pushing and shoving, it's no different than a double foul in the post, is it? They are personal fouls. You can call them intentional if you want, but that part is irrelevant to the penalty administration.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In 10.3.7, A1 has already returned to the ground and so is no longer an airborne shooter.

That's really the crux of the entire thread. Do you think that the intentional contact during a dead ball is ALWAYS a technical foul? Or do you believe that the airborne shooter exception in 4-19-1 also applies to dead ball periods?

I don't see any reason to say that 4-19-1 only applies to live balls. It certainly doesn't say that in the rules. We just normally think of it that way. Just because this play doesn't fit into how we "normally" call contact on or by an airborne shooter, doesn't mean the rule stops applying in those non-normal situations. JMHO.

I agree with you that this play is a little different than what we have been talking about. But I am still trying to figure out how you automatically go to the PC foul on an airborne shooter with a defender that was never in a legal position. The defender even went towards the shooter and did not give him a place to land. So if that rule is not going to be invoked then why are we ignoring the responsibility of the defender? Keep in mind I am not saying we should call a foul on anyone for this play based on the actions of either player based on LGP or airborne shooter rules. But it sounds like we have ignored what the defender must do before the shooter leaves the floor.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am still trying to figure out how you automatically go to the PC foul on an airborne shooter with a defender that was never in a legal position.

The reason you can't figure it out is that I'm not going to the PC foul. A PC foul is a common foul, and this situation clearly is not a common foul. So it seems to me that guarding position isn't a factor in deciding how to call this play.

It's essentially the same play as if A1 dunks the ball and then punches B1 on the way back to the floor. Certainly not a PC, definitely doesn't depend on LGP. It's contact by the airborne shooter after the ball is dead. Is it a flagrant personal or a flagrant technical? By rule, it's flagrant personal. Same as in the video, again IMHO.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What I should have said was that you don't have rule support to call a technical foul for the contact involved in landing on the defensive player.

Correct, but that is exactly why Rut is T'ing the player--FOR THE CONTACT. He has now resorted to word games in an effort to not have to admit his error.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It's essentially the same play as if A1 dunks the ball and then punches B1 on the way back to the floor. Certainly not a PC, definitely doesn't depend on LGP. It's contact by the airborne shooter after the ball is dead. Is it a flagrant personal or a flagrant technical? By rule, it's flagrant personal. Same as in the video, again IMHO.

This argument carries the day. It's perfect.
Of course, Rut would T the guy for punching the opponent. He would argue that he's penalizing the thought which entered the player's head just before he struck his opponent or some other such nonsense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This argument carries the day. It's perfect.
Of course, Rut would T the guy for punching the opponent. He would argue that he's penalizing the thought which entered the player's head just before he struck his opponent or some other such nonsense.

For the record, there is an argument to be made that the punch would be considered "fighting" and thus should be penalized as a flagrant T regardless of whether it's dead ball or live ball contact.

That was how I was instructed, after the fact, to call a particular fight in a game I worked several years ago in Iowa.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For the record, there is an argument to be made that the punch would be considered "fighting" and thus should be penalized as a flagrant T regardless of whether it's dead ball or live ball contact.

That was how I was instructed, after the fact, to call a particular fight in a game I worked several years ago in Iowa.

Not just an argument, that is what the rule is.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For the record, there is an argument to be made that the punch would be considered "fighting" and thus should be penalized as a flagrant T regardless of whether it's dead ball or live ball contact.

That was how I was instructed, after the fact, to call a particular fight in a game I worked several years ago in Iowa.

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))

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not just an argument, that is what the rule is.

DEAD WRONG!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct, but that is exactly why Rut is T'ing the player--FOR THE CONTACT. He has now resorted to word games in an effort to not have to admit his error.

What error would that be? That I have said that I would give a T for taunting? That has been the claim the entire time. Please show a reference that I am giving a T for implying contact? There is plenty of evidence in this thread to show my comments. I think you are just alone in your position and want to have someone to blame. Because I noticed you have not taking on the positions of others in this thread that have called you out for being unreasonable or silly in your position. There have been plenty here that have referenced your position as "that guy" or "only one official" would call this. Maybe I am so powerful on this site that I can influence how others think about basic rules applications.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What error would that be? That I have said that I would give a T for taunting? That has been the claim the entire time. Please show a reference that I am giving a T for implying contact? There is plenty of evidence in this thread to show my comments. I think you are just alone in your position and want to have someone to blame. Because I noticed you have not taking on the positions of others in this thread that have called you out for being unreasonable or silly in your position. There have been plenty here that have referenced your position as "that guy" or "only one official" would call this. Maybe I am so powerful on this site that I can influence how others think about basic rules applications.

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.
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.

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.

[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

Correct, but that is exactly why Rut is T'ing the player--FOR THE CONTACT. He has now resorted to word games in an effort to not have to admit his error.


This argument carries the day. It's perfect.
Of course, Rut would T the guy for punching the opponent. He would argue that he's penalizing the thought which entered the player's head just before he struck his opponent or some other such nonsense.

Well, the rule book DOES say that a punch is a fight and that fighting is a flagrant T. Of course, it is contradicted by other elements that suggest that it is a personal foul if the ball is live. So, you have a choice of which one to follow....so he wouldn't be wrong in either case.

I can also find no rule or case that says that taunting must be free of contact.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I can also find no rule or case that says that taunting must be free of contact.

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.

[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.