Make the call

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is a case case play where there is an obvious breakaway when the defensive coach says something to earn a technical foul.

That's 10.4.1 F, and I agree with Camron. I say this applies to tref's sitch. Hold the whistle until the shot is released, and call the foul. It's unfair to penalize the offense by blowing the play dead on an obvious scoring opportunity.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's 10.4.1 F.

10.4.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when
the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is
being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How
should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing
the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then
sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a
technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be
ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be
sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

[tref]

For the record, I handled it like Snaqs suggested. My partner took Camron & bainsey stance. When the play occurred the delayed unsporting technical rule came to mind before I called the intentional personal. But a technical is not an intentional personal. As I originally stated A1 was still dribbling & the shove by B1 was so over the top I couldn't see waiting to count the basket then coming back to call an INT as an option. Those who would delay the whistle, rules reference please...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

For the record, I handled it like Snaqs suggested. My partner took Camron & bainsey stance. When the play occurred the delayed unsporting technical rule came to mind before I called the intentional personal. But a technical is not an intentional personal. As I originally stated A1 was still dribbling & the shove by B1 was so over the top I couldn't see waiting to count the basket then coming back to call an INT as an option. Those who would delay the whistle, rules reference please...

The reference is 10.4.1F. There is NOTHING in the rule book to support this case. But the case give the philosophy of the NFHS that egregious infractions that occur when an obvious score is about to occur should be delayed until the shot is taken such that the act is maximally penalized and/or that the scoring team is not disadvantaged unfairly.

I believe there is also a case for a player deliberately leaving the court on such a situation. IIRC, the NFHS also ruled that the violation call be delayed until the bucket is scored.

Another case of a delayed violation...FT lane violations by the defense. A bit different, but still an example of waiting to address a violation.

We have to use the concepts presented by the cases we have to rule on the actions in a game. We really don't want a casebook with EVERYTHING spelled out as some seem to demand. That would be unimaginably large.

[tref]

Excellent points Cameron. I understand the delay for an unsporting technical & FT violations, but I fail to see how that relates to live ball contact.
Are there any caseplays that support a delayed whistle for illegal contact?

If B1 would've hit (flagrant) A2 instead of shoving him (intentional) would you delay that as well?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

Excellent points Cameron. I understand the delay for an unsporting technical & FT violations, but I fail to see how that relates to live ball contact.
Are there any caseplays that support a delayed whistle for illegal contact?

If B1 would've hit (flagrant) A2 instead of shoving him (intentional) would you delay that as well?

There is no support to delay calling an intentional personal foul. The case play for an unsporting technical is specific to unsporting conduct/behavior.

To me this would be no different than any other personal foul away from the ball. You need to determine (with help from your crew if necessary) if the habitual shooting motion had started.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The reference is 10.4.1F. There is NOTHING in the rule book to support this case. But the case give the philosophy of the NFHS that egregious infractions that occur when an obvious score is about to occur should be delayed until the shot is taken such that the act is maximally penalized and/or that the scoring team is not disadvantaged unfairly.

+1

Besides, who could have a legitimate beef with this one? The team that committed the foul? "You should have blown the play dead!"???

If your team commits such a foul at this time, there's not much of a leg to stand on, IMO.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

+1

Besides, who could have a legitimate beef with this one? The team that committed the foul? "You should have blown the play dead!"???

If your team commits such a foul at this time, there's not much of a leg to stand on, IMO.

Some coaches know the rules...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

Some coaches know the rules...

Exactly. And some coaches have videos they send in to supervisors. And if they send in a tape showing A1 is still dribbling when B2 fouls A2 then you have 1 of 2 problems with purposely delaying the whistle, integrity or rules knowledge.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Exactly. And some coaches have videos they send in to supervisors. And if they send in a tape showing A1 is still dribbling when B2 fouls A2 then you have 1 of 2 problems with purposely delaying the whistle, integrity or rules knowledge.

Not necessarily. This is more about rule philosophy. I believe we all have solid knowledge.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If your team commits such a foul at this time, there's not much of a leg to stand on, IMO.

The rule book is a pretty strong leg, IMO. How close is close enough? If A1 is near the division line when A2 gets plowed, you still going to hold your whistle?

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule book is a pretty strong leg, IMO. How close is close enough? If A1 is near the division line when A2 gets plowed, you still going to hold your whistle?

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.

I agree....there is only so long you can wait. If the ball is at the division line, you probably can't wait.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree....there is only so long you can wait.

Not to nit-pick but exactly how long can we wait to call an INT off-ball personal foul?

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?