Whaddya got?
 

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pe5D9RRtWCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Judging the play by itself I've got nothing...blow the play dead, let them separate, a friendly reminder that he can hang on to the rim to protect himself, move on.

Now if there were events prior to this that needed addressing (game becoming chippy, players talked to prior, ect.) I could easily see this being a T.

I probably would T up Rondo in this case. He clearly tried to land on player on the other team. I am surprised the restraint the defender showed in that situation. Rondo is lucky he was not in a neck brace.

Peace

+1 He is also lucky his opponent wasn't Pre-2011 Ron Artest.

Time to brew up a kettle.

+1. T should have been served...might even have been flagrant. Looked like a pretty deliberate act to humiliate defender that could have exploded if the defender was more of a hothead.

The defender may have been laughing during that last playoff series.

Agreed....Rondo pulled himself up on the rim and swung onto the defenders shoulders....*WHACK!

How in the world is this not a T??? Rondo hung there, and then swung himself up and over to land on the guy's shoulders. Even in a "friendly" All-Star type game, that needs to be T'd.

Whack.

Whack-o-la

What about the basket?
 

Technically he was still an airborne shooter...

And that means what?

Peace

It seems you could call this a player control foul and take the basket away. But now I have to go read the rules- I assume you could not do both (call a technical and take the basket away).

If an airborne shooter commits a common foul the basket does not count. But if they commit a technical, the basket does count?

All I have to say is........
 

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255F%2526i%253D36%252F36%255F 1%255F6%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_6.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D36%252F36_1_6%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a> NO!!!!

Peace

It is possible to commit both a personal foul AND a technical foul.

So count the basket or not?
 

On the floor, I would have counted the basket and called a technical foul. On my couch at home, I must admit I have always been confused about foul categories, even though the topic appears here frequently. I am not sure if there is such a thing as a "player control technical". If there is, we should take away the basket on this play.

The rules I looked at are below. I am still not sure of the answer.

4.1.1 An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try
for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

4.19.1
A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact
by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

4.19.2
A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor
intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a
part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul

4.19.5c
A technical foul is:
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul
by an airborne shooter.

4.19.6
A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while
he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter.

5.1.2
Whether the clock is running or stopped has no influence on the
counting of a goal. If a player-control foul occurs before or after a goal, the goal
is canceled.

If you decide to call a player control foul, then the basket wouldn't count. If you decide to call a technical foul, then the basket counts and you'll administer the technical foul. Also, there's no such thing as a "player control technical."

You're not sure!? You cited the rules.

A PC foul is a common foul (4-19-6). A common foul is a personal foul (4-19-2).

So, it can't be a technical foul.

OK, the list in 4.19.5 prevents a foul from being both personal and technical. I think I see this, but I wish it were explicitly stated.

If a foul cannot be both personal and technical, I think I finally get this (after four years of officiating).

If this is the case, we cannot a call a technical in the OP unless we assume he hung on the rim long enough that the ball was dead, even though he had not returned to the ground as per 4.1.1.

Sorry to turn an interesting video post into into a newbie question, but I never have really got this. Since he never returns to the ground, this got me thinking.

Unsportsmanlike conduct can be called whether the ball is live or dead. This falls a lot more along the lines of unsportsmanlike conduct than it does a "dead ball" contact foul.

Rsi,

I appreciate the trying to figure out what to do part of this, but the player Rondo landed on did not appear to be in LGP. If you called that, then you might have to explain to someone why that was your decision. At least with a technical foul you have basis for such a rule as the play by rule is dead and any contact would be a T. But this would IMO not be just about the contact, it is about the act that Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent. Stick with the obvious and call a T here. Calling a PC foul would not only be questionable, but not "technically" correct with how other factors are not present at that moment to make this a simply PC foul. Do not go troubling trouble.

Peace

+1

and I think I finally have my rule straight as well. You will now be returned to your regular boring May programming on the board ...

Riddle Me This ...
 

If March winds bring April showers. And if April showers bring May flowers. Then what do May flowers bring?

You could call an intentional personal foul on the shooter. A lack of LGP does not mean an offensive player can seek out a defender and purposefully create contact. That said, I'm giving him the T for hanging on the rim and leaving it at that.

Sort of like when multiple defenders foul a shooter, you could call them all, but it's overkill. Like you said, on this, call the obvious.

And Rondo is lucky he didn't get dumped on his head.

I agree with that, but it would be a stretch to call a PC foul just because the player was an airborne shooter. But if you call an intentional foul, it does not fit the definition of a PC foul and you cannot cancel the basket for that kind of foul either. Bottom line is you have made a simply situation into a complicated one. Do not get cute trying to over penalize the player, just call what they did and everyone can live with. Then again, it appears that no one called anything on this play. But the video was not definitive about that fact.

Peace

Whack.

This is so poor that I must question whether you know the rule any better than rsl.
1. LGP has nothing to do with the play. Why do you even mention it? A player with the ball or an airborne shooter can certainly commit a player control foul against an opponent who does not have LGP. There is a nice depiction in the Simplified & Illustrated book of a player charging into a defender who is facing the away from him. Take a look at it.
2. Yes, the ball is dead as it has passed through the basket, but writing "any contact would be a T" is wrong as this contact was created by an airborne shooter and rule 4-19-1 specifically tells us that such contact is a personal foul. Furthermore, any contact which is not intentional or flagrant or involving an airborne shooter during a dead ball is to be ignored as stated in the note to that same rule. Did you totally forget about this?
3. Lastly, you advise to "Stick with the obvious and call a T here." Too bad, as such poor advice is not supported by the NFHS rules. You are clearly not saying to charge a T for grasping the ring as you note "Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent," so you are attempting to penalize his behavior. However, what was that behavior? Did he taunting him with words or by pointing at him? Nope, it was the act of landing himself on top of his opponent. That is a contact action. So BY RULE you cannot charge him with a T for unsporting behavior as that is defined as a NONcontact foul in 4-19-14.
4. Therefore, the proper ruling cannot be a technical foul for the behavior of the player in this particular case, but one could be charged for grasping the ring. Nor in my opinion should a player control foul be called, but that is at least a judgment call about the contact and not simply wrong by rule. What I see in this video is an airborne shooter deliberately creating unacceptable contact with an opponent during a dead ball. According to the NFHS rules that needs to be penalized with an intentional personal foul. The goal with count as the foul is not a common foul and thus cannot qualify as a player control foul. The offended player will attempt two FTs at the other end and then his team will have a designated-spot throw-in on the end line nearest to where the foul occurred.

This was an unusual play involving an airborne shooter misbehaving by creating contact. I commend rsl for inquiring about the proper ruling. You shouldn't have dismissed his querry so easily with your "keep it simple" advice, which in this case amounts to "don't really think about it and just get it wrong, very few people will actually know." That's a sad way to officiate. :(

I'm calling a 'T' for unnecessarily hanging and swinging on the rim.

Would Rondo have still been considered an Airborne Shooter had the opponents immediately grab the ball after basket and had the ball at their disposal before Rondo placed himself upon the defender's shoulders?

By rule, yes.

May I borrow this?

I heard it from someone else, of course you can. ;)

Peace

Last time I checked, LGP was not a requirement for there to be a PC foul.

I did not say you must only be in LGP to have a PC foul called in your favor. Please find the exact quote where I made that statement. If you read my entire comments, I was responding to the position that this player was not in LGP, not that you cannot ever call a foul for that reason and that reason alone.

As the factors that we are discussing in this play, an airborne player which the rules says (4-23-5d) the guard must have obtained LGP before the opponent leaves the floor. The defender not only jumps into and towards Rondo, but he also was in an illegal position if any significant contact took place. I guess if you wanted to go there, there would be justification to call a foul on the defender much more than on the airborne player. That would be more proper if we are talking about a PC foul vs. a blocking foul in this situation if you ask me. This is also why we get paid the big bucks right?

Peace

No, but you threw LGP into the discussion as the reason you can't call a PC foul here when it's completely irrelevant.

Anyone who calls a defensive (shooting) foul here is going to get an *** chewing for not calling the T for using the rim to change his direction. And by the time the contact here occurs, the defender is walking away from Rondo. You can't rundown a defender from behind even if he doesn't have LGP.

sorry, but there's more justification for a PC foul (by rule) than a bocking foul. I'm still going with the T for hanging on the rim and ignoring the contact.

I brought this up because it would be a factor in this play if we consider calling a PC foul. And this defender that was landed on was not in LGP. If you are going to have a PC Foul, then you better discuss that part of this play too.


I think if someone called either they would be chewed out at least they would in my world. Just because you say there is more justification for one foul over another does not make it so either. Maybe you feel there is more justification personally, but the fact that no one independently brought this up as an issue other than an official that is trying to learn (nothing wrong with that at all) is telling to me how many would even consider such a call.

Peace

Not relevant. Player doesn't have LGP but it could still be a PC foul. LGP is not necessary at all in this play so there is no need to even discuss it.

I find it odd that anyone wants to T this for grabbing the rim, when there was clearly someone somewhat underneath him at that moment - doesn't such an instance give the shooter MORE leeway regarding hanging onto the rim longer to avoid landing on someone? In fact, someone early in the thread suggests reminding him that he should have held on LONGER.

I'm not sure I have a foul of any sort here.

I agree that if there's a T to be called, it's not for hanging on the rim but rather if you felt the action committed was unsporting. Not sure why there's continued talk about LGP or player control fouls. If we want to really go that route, I'd say a blocking foul because the defender moved into the path after Rando was airborne. Of course said interpretation would be ridiculous. The decision to be made here is T vs. no T for landing on the defender.

Hanging on the rim for safety is not the same as doing a chin-up, lifting up, or swinging around to land on someone. He gets to grab the rim for safety....anything more reopens the door for a possible T. And that was certainly more, even if he missed the player.

I agree, but grabbing & hanging to prevent injury and swinging & mounting to humiliate the defender are two different things.

Depending on what has happened prior to this play, would make this decision easier.

Yep.

Peace

I am not the one that tried to turn this into a PC foul vs Block vs. T conversation. I just responded to the suggestion this should even be a factor at all. Maybe you did not read the entire thread I do not know. ;)

Peace

Nevada's point is that by rule you can't call an unsporting T for contact involving an airborne shooter; even if the ball is dead.

I think this is a situation for which the rules are unprepared, as I'm pretty sure the gurus on the committee would prefer to see a T called for this action (even if you don't call it for hanging due to the player underneath).

Maybe it could be remedied by revising the denfitions so that a player is no longer an airborne shooter once he does a chin-up on the rim.

+1...once he hangs on the rim, for safety purposes or illegally, he is no longer an airborne shooter.

I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't what the airborne exception was meant for, and if I'm going to make a call here it's going to be a technical foul for an unsporting act.

And, plain and simple, that is what happened.

Exactly!!!!

Peace

Unfortunately, several people seem to be advocating applying their own personal philosophies to this play instead of enforcing the rules as written as the NFHS has instructed us to do several times over the past few years in POEs. :(

Just because one doesn't like the outcome that the rules generate, that doesn't permit an individual to apply them differently (some might even contend incorrectly). ;)

Unfortunately your reading comprehesion is lacking. Snaq's was suggesting a change in the defintion of an airborne shooter and I was agreeing with his suggestion. So subtract at least 2 from your several.

R.I.F. -- applies here just as much here as it does with the rule book.

Will you give us all a break. No one is even suggesting a personal interpretation at all. Actually there are several that are not trying to create a call out of fault logic. If your interpretation is so solid, then show some evidence that this situation should be called that way based on the circumstances of this play.

Peace

But, if Rondo's mom came onto the floor to see if he was okay, she should be ejected.

Too Funny. <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255F%2526i%253D36%252F36%255F 1%255F55%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D36%252F36_1_55%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a>

Peace

If Nevada is implying I would make up my own rules, then I take exception. I'm just not sure he was implying that.

My ruling on the play: T for hanging on the rim. He gets to hang up there to stop from falling, but he doesn't get to throw himself onto another player. It says he may grasp it to prevent injury, it doesn't say he gets to play Tarzan while doing so.

I'll ignore the PC foul, just as I'd ignore all but one of multiple fouls committed on a shooter.

I think the rule is clear, if you're calling a foul for the contact, it should be a personal (probably intentional in this case). I also think the rule should be slightly amended, or a case play offered to give us clear direction on an abnormal play.

T for hanging on the rim and intentional personal foul for jumping on the defender. Probably at least one T on his bench too.

And thus would be the end of my non-existent varsity career. :D

Anytime you do something he does not agree with you are making up your own rules. He makes this claim every time there is a rules discussion and you do not agree with him. Even if what he suggests would be very hard to sell or justify to those observing.

Peace

Don't forget handing the team with a technical foul....

If we're talking about personal philosophy, then that is the king of them..if you're willing to make that kind of pioneer call, then I think I'll live with calling a T here for an unsporting act.

I understood that Snaq's was suggesting a rule change. I did not understand that you were as well. Your post didn't include the words "could" or "should" which was misleading to me.
So I'll subtract 1 from the count.

You were just camping out waiting to use that, weren't you?

No. Maybe.

Well, yes.

Shutup.

Okay, so, by rule: T for hanging and an intentional personal for the landing.

For the newer officials: Where would the throw-in be?

You're also forgetting the T that's going to be handed to the head coach after you make that call

Since we have a dead ball, isn't it an intentional technical? 1 and a 2...

"Airborne" shooter exception...

Then he's gone right after Mrs Rondo is ejected and he gets an indirect for that AND the direct T for reacting to the ejection T.

Sure, if you listen to the table crew.

Right, right... hence some officials argument for pc.
I'll go with the T for hanging.

Me too, just thought it made an interesting exercise in rule study.

Where would the T-I spot be?

Wasn't someone under him?

Peace

I will say..I wouldn't give a T for the hang...I actually don't think he hung on the rim that much and I do think the defender is close enough to justify hanging on for safety. If I were to give a T, it would be for the possbile unsporting act itself (even if it wasn't supported technically by rule).

Seeing this opinion expressed by a presumably good official makes me http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/puke.gif

Why such resistance to following the NFHS directive and enforcing the rules as written? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/read.gif

Do you have a case play or interpretation that suggests this is a NF directive issue?

Better yet, wasn't it you that claimed that Struckoff had no concept of the rules? :eek:

Peace

He gets to hang to prevent himself from landing on another player. He doesn't get to swing to cause himself to land on another player. The rule says, specifically, "to prevent injury," which he clearly does not do. T for the hang, IMO.

But he doesn't hang, he lets go so he can land on the opponent. He he does not land on the guy then there would be nothing unusual about this dunk.

Peace

True, but I don't actually think he really swung on the rim...at least nothing worthy of a T. I think that people are fixated on the fact that he landed on a player's back, that it appears the he's swinging like Tarzan on the rim. Like Rut said, if none of that happened, then I feel like 95% of us wouldn't think anything of his grabbing the rim.

And Nevada, if you're telling me that you would issue a T for hanging on the rim, and an intentional foul...well then good luck with that.

You're right; if he swings like that and lands on the floor, I've got nothing since there was a player under him when he dunked. If he swung like that without a player under him, it's a T. The rule says he gets to prevent injury, so by purposefully landing on another player, he makes it clear that he was not grasping the ring to prevent injury.

I don't have my book handy, but I think this might also fit under taunting.

Another thought:
Live ball, A1 and B1 square off and start bumping chests in the middle of play.

Most of us would go with double Ts. The contact is incidental to the action earning the T.

He hung long enough to rotate his body towards the other player. It was not a normal movement of dunking. If that is not a hang, then there is no such thing.

That's kind of my point...the actually grasping of the rim wasn't long enough to warrant a T. He doesn't IMO grasp the rim for any length of time and doesn't really "swing on the rim."

I feel like if a T is called here, then you could fit it under taunting like the play you mention. I feel like that's a much more accurate interpretation of this play rather than calling a T for grasping the rim. And I would call a double T in your situation like you suggest, but if we want to stick by the book, we should call a double foul since we can't call a T for live ball contact. Not saying I'd go that route, but it seems like some want to go strictly by the book

Considering I see that very same action on many dunks and certainly dunks where a player has received an alley opp pass, then we are not calling a lot of Ts for this at all.

Peace

Really? The grasping on the rim didn't even register to me cause we see that kind of stuff on a regular basis and we're not T'ing it. IMO, the landing on the defender is skewing the preception of his "hanging" on the rim.

If it weren't for the redirection to land on the other player's shoulders, it wouldn't cross my threshold to draw the whistle. But, when it was done to land on the other player, it would.

Live From Connecticut, It's Thursday Afternoon ...
 

Pilgrims.

I would've taken the lack of answer as a hint. :)

There's a reason no one replied Billy...

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255F%2526i%253D4%252F4%255F1% 255F213%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_213.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D4%252F4_1_213%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a>

Peace

Isn't this the equivalent to hitting "like" on your own facebook post?

It would seem to be quite similar. But, with all the rain in the northeast, perhaps the crickets aren't out yet.

T'em up, count the bucket.

It was a POE about two seasons ago. It was right there in the rules book for you in black and white. All you have to do is read it.

Just because Struckhoff doesn't understand the NFHS rules very well doesn't mean that the committee can't instruct all officials to enforce them as written.

Nope, I recommend one or the other. Back in post #28 of this thread, I stated to call the IPF.

You will not find any part of that POE or a specific interpretation that suggest the play in question to have a PC foul call. And when you do, then I will worry about what is in black and white. But there always has to be one guy.

Peace

Fixed it for ya.:D

Never said that there was a POE or directive to "have a PC foul" what I wrote was that the NFHS has clearly directed the officials of the HS game to enforce the rules as written and not deviate with personal philosophies.
Too bad that you can't grasp that. You are guilty of advising people to fail to follow the rules as written by advocating that a technical foul be charged in this specific situation when the rules clearly forbid such as the play involved physical contact.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

2. 1. RULES ENFORCEMENT. There appears to be continued movement away from consistent enforcement of NFHS playing rules. Personal interpretations of the rules by individual officials have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risk to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game. Illegal tactics that are permitted – are promoted. When officials allow players to use illegal tactics without penalty, the behavior is condoned and consequently encouraged. When officials consistently enforce the playing rules as intended, players and coaches are able to make the proper adjustments – promoting skill development and a level playing field.

The rules forbid calling a technical foul when there is physical contact? :confused:

News to me.

Yes, Brad, in this specific situation. Please read the entire sentence and think about it before popping off.

The specific situation is contact by or on an airborne shooter while the ball is dead. NFHS rule 4-19-1 note states that this is a personal foul.

If the player were not an airborne shooter, then a technical foul would be appropriate. However, that is not the case here.

Maybe you should have highlighted that part in red! :)

The rules don't forbid any such thing in this case though. Because this can easily fall under 10-3-7c (Player Technical) "A player shall not ... Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as ... Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin."

If timing the dismount of your monster dunk so that you land on your opponent and ride him piggyback is not intended to embarrass, ridicule, or demean, I don't know what is.

Exactly!!!

Peace

Ball through the net. Dead ball until team secures it to begin throw-in. No matter which way you try to spin it, a technical foul call is warranted.

Nevada's contention is that even though the ball is dead, the airborne exception applies here. I'd contend, that this is not what the airborne exception was intended for, and I would take a hit for calling a T instead of an intentional personal foul even when it's not "by the book."