Make the call

[tref]

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.

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.

I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...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.

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.

[BillyMac]

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)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.



I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

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.

No, there's no case play that says that. There's a rule. The case play that says the opposite applies to technical fouls, not intentional fouls.

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

So what infer from you is, on a common foul, you can hold the whistle, but on an intentional foul, it's immediate. If that's what you're saying, what rule citations are there, or is this more of a gut feeling?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

So what infer from you is, on a common foul, you can hold the whistle, but on an intentional foul, it's immediate. If that's what you're saying, what rule citations are there, or is this more of a gut feeling?

Where in the world do you get that inference?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Where in the world do you get that inference?

Your words...

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Your words...

Why would you consider calling a foul away from the play like this anything but an intentional/flagrant foul? An opponent trying to commit a foul away form the play like this is a textbook example of a foul that "neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position," and it's the only way I'd put air in the whistle.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

So what infer from you is, on a common foul, you can hold the whistle, but on an intentional foul, it's immediate. If that's what you're saying, what rule citations are there, or is this more of a gut feeling?

I don't know where you got that inference from.

Bottom-line, on personal fouls away from the ball you need to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. Concentrate on and master that before before trying to get all cutesy with delayed whistles and being "fair".

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Bottom-line, on personal fouls away from the ball you need to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. Concentrate on and master that before before trying to get all cutesy with delayed whistles and being "fair".

I believe we're already on the same page, sir.

A prerequisite for a delayed whistle is determining the status of the ball at the time of the foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I believe we're already on the same page, sir.

A prerequisite for a delayed whistle is determining the status of the ball at the time of the foul.

The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.

If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Your words...

Context:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, there's no case play that says that. There's a rule. The case play that says the opposite applies to technical fouls, not intentional fouls.

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?

1. I said nothing about holding the whistle for a common foul.
2. The context is that this was a response to your post below.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.

I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

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.

My point was the "unfair advantage" aspect is taken care of by the added penalty of the possession. Note there's nothing about holding or whitholding your whistle on either foul.

You hold your whistle only long enough to determine if it was really a foul; which will typically take longer for a common foul than for an intentional foul.