![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Intentional fouls usually need to be grabbed immediately to prevent escalation, especially when committed out of frustration. And frankly, I'd rather fall back on the rules than a questionable interpretation of a barely related case play. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
After the kid retaliates & jumps in the offenders face? Now we gotta false double. After a punch is thrown? Now we have to upgrade what was an INT to a flagrant & both kids are tossed. In my sitch, does the team up by 20 really need a bucket, 2 shots & the ball back? |
Quote:
The aforementioned case play makes it clear to me that you can't let the defense take away an obvious scoring opportunity from the offense. If the coach has such a problem with it that he would send in a tape to your supervisor, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either the supervisor is going to back up your ruling, or at least talk with you about it. Either way, someone is going to learn something, and make a greater stride toward everyone getting on the same page. |
Quote:
The exception for a delayed whistle applies to unsporting behavior that is penalized by a technical foul. It's a specific case play. Extrapolating that to this play has no basis in the rule book because you already have rules and case plays that tell you how to handle personal fouls away from the ball when a shot is imminent. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My bosses expect staff to already know these things... |
Quote:
If you only made calls on plays that exactly match the case book, you'd be missing a lot of calls. Again, case book plays are not "specific" but are examples. You shouldn't limit yourself to applying the concepts in the case only to situations where the exact same events occur. As for the delayed T, there is no rules basis for that case play either....but it is there. |
Quote:
There are rules and cases plays for personal fouls away from the ball when shots are imminent or in flight. I fail to see the grey that needs interpreting. |
Quote:
I see your point, though. We're at completely different levels with different expectations. I've never had to deal with the sitch in question -- who knows if I ever will -- so if you have a case play that counters the aforementioned, I'll be glad to hear it. |
Cool!
At the HS level the assigning body needs us just as much as we need them. Higher levels need only one misapplication of the rules to suspend you or even worse, let you go. Afterall, there are many new prospects each year. So the accountability factor is much different. I hadn't seen that play before either. Thats why I brought it here after my partner (higher level than myself) questioned it. I wanted to make sure I got it right should it ever come up again. I do not have a caseplay to counter the aforementioned... but the aforementioned clearly applies to non-contact unsporting technical fouls. And we all know an INT personal is not in the same family as Ts. Where is JR when you need him?? There may be a caseplay from '77 that deals with this :D |
Quote:
Quote:
For me, it comes back to advantage/disadvantage. Does the contact create an unfair advantage? Will blowing the whistle compromise a fairly earned advantage? Now, if there's case play that soundly states the play must be blown dead immediately, then my point is moot. That's all I'm stating. I'll defer to the senior statesmen of this board for such a ruling. |
Quote:
Look up personal fouls that occur when a shot is imminent or in flight. That will give you what you need. Never during my travels have I heard to withhold a whistle on an intentioal foul based on advantage/disadvantage. |
Player Out Of Bounds Leaving The Court ???
9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8) |
Quote:
All the case plays you need are there to determine how to administer the play when a personal foul occurs before a try has begun; and they all comply with the rule. The "unfair advantage" is punished by two shots and the ball, per the rule. It's why you don't just go with a common foul. It's the same as if B1 had fouled A1 rather than A2. If he shoved A1 two steps before he could begin gathering the dribble, would you give him the shot anyway? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23pm. |