Lesson learned

[tref]

Started a HS Fall League last night & ran into this situation.

A34 jumps up & over B34 (who is a foot shorter) for an offensive rebound. Before returning to the ground B34 "boxes out" A34 & displaced him a few feet (new RA towards the FT line).
We have 3 whistles & close down on the play. It seems that we all have the same thing, the L says, "I got it... I got it on 34" so he takes it to the table. Problem is they were both 34...

Team B is in the bonus & as we walk the other way Team As coach cant believe it. I look at my other partner & he looks as confused as I am.
We come together again & the calling official (Lead) said he had an over the back on A34.
I had plenty of space between the players from the C as did the T. Our whistles were on the defense for backing a rebounder out of position while airborne.

Communication, communication, communication

Had I known he was going with that foul (which we shouldn't do as Lead especially when 2 other whistles pop off--- give that up or better yet, dont guess) I would have went with a technical on B34.

From now on I dont care who I'm working with or what their experience level is! I am not assuming we have the same thing... I need to know the number as well as the color, what type of foul & who's shooting FTs before we break our huddle.

Post game: Team As coach was disappointed in me as I see them quite often during the off/reg/post-seasons. I just told him, I was more disappointed in myself than he could ever be & it wouldn't ever happen again. I felt $hitty for the rest of the game Better to go through this now than in Feb.
Luckily we had a couple more games to shake off that uneasy feeling. I would have hated to end the night on that note.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

Had I known he was going with that foul (which we shouldn't do as Lead especially when 2 other whistles pop off--- give that up or better yet, dont guess) I would have went with a technical on B34.

Technical for what?

[tref]

My whistle was for B34s act, had I known his whistle was for a phantom over the back call on A34, then mine would become a dead ball contact whistle... T.

You had to see this one Bob, we had bodies in the paint & attitudes due to the backing out of an airborne rebounder.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

My whistle was for B34s act, had I known his whistle was for a phantom over the back call on A34, then mine would become a dead ball contact whistle... T.

So, had L deferred to you in the OP, would you have had an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul?

[tref]

Upon closing down X was on my mind.

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by tref

My whistle was for B34s act, had I known his whistle was for a phantom over the back call on A34, then mine would become a dead ball contact whistle... T.

You had to see this one Bob, we had bodies in the paint & attitudes due to the backing out of an airborne rebounder.

I acknowledge that it was most likely a HTBT type of situation, but this is opening up a can of worms that 9 times out of 10 is only going to make the situation worse for everybody involved. If you have two different personal fouls (which you did) and you can't talk your partner out of his (I hope you brought him "information" and told him what YOU had), then go to the table with the personal foul that happened first.

There is just nothing from a common sense stand point (again, I wasn't there) from the sound of this that needed to be punished with a dead ball contact technical foul which is what you're saying you wished you would have had. It was a basketball act (granted a stupid one) that was the second personal foul in a sequence, not a technical foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

a phantom over the back call...

Redundant, yes?

[tref]

I understand jhawk... as I originally stated he came off the endline with "I got it... I got it on 34." So there was nothing to talk him out of as we all had the same obvious foul that everyone in the gym saw, or so I thought

In hindsight, if his whistle was for a rebounding foul then all action after that was dead ball contact, no?

Let me paint a more vivid picture, imagine B34 just inside the RA, A34 (6'4")jumps up & over him with the rebound in hand. After purposely being backed out as far as one step below the FT line extended by a bent over B34 (bent over like all he can see is the floor--- no verticality whatsoever) A34 finally loses his balance (because B34 wont stop) & topples over B34 in the paint. They're both lying on the floor now.

Thats not a basketball play that I have seen.

Teaching points: Never assume what a partner has & dont call rebounding fouls from behind as lead.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Redundant, yes?

haha yes

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

In hindsight, if his whistle was for a rebounding foul then all action after that was dead ball contact, no?

Let me paint a more vivid picture, imagine B34 just inside the RA, A34 (6'4")jumps up & over him with the rebound in hand. After purposely being backed out as far as one step below the FT line extended by a bent over B34 (bent over like all he can see is the floor--- no verticality whatsoever) A34 finally loses his balance (because B34 wont stop) & topples over B34 in the paint. They're both lying on the floor now.

Thats not a basketball play that I have seen.

It is a dead ball, sure, but if it has not been and you had made the only call, would have have called an intentional foul on B34? If not, then it doesn't become one because the ball happened to be dead. As such, you can't have a T. It is simply nothing.

You're grasping for a way to penalize B34 because your partner tagged the wrong player with a foul....the best you can do is make it a double foul.....sort of like a blarge...but a T is NOT the answer.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a dead ball, sure, but if it has not been and you had made the only call, would have have called an intentional foul on B34?

Originally Posted by tref

Upon closing down X was on my mind.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're grasping for a way to penalize B34 because your partner tagged the wrong player with a foul....the best you can do is make it a double foul.....sort of like a blarge...but a T is NOT the answer.

Well if he has an "over the back" foul & it wasnt on a try, the clock stops there, right?
Then the egregious act had to be on the dead ball, no? To me that sounds like a false double. In that situation the 2nd foul was during a dead ball... Intentional T or flagrant T.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Well if he has an "over the back" foul & it wasnt on a try, the clock stops there, right?
Then the egregious act had to be on the dead ball, no? To me that sounds like a false double. In that situation the 2nd foul was during a dead ball... Intentional T or flagrant T.

You missed my point....

Assume the ball was not dead (no other foul called). Would you have then called the contact intentional/flagrant?

If not, then it was not intentional or flagrant. Contact doesn't become intentional just because the ball was dead if it wouldn't have been intentional/flagrant with the clock running. It is nothing.

Said another way, contact during a dead ball is ignored unless that contact was intentional/flagrant. The definition of intentional/flagrant doesn't change depending on the status of the ball (live/dead). The only thing that changes is that dead ball contact becomes a T, when the contact, on its own merits, is intentional/flagrant.

From your OP, It doesn't sound like you were even considering anything but a common foul until you realized your partner called it on the other player....if that is the case, it wasn't an intentional foul.

[Adam]

Camron, he did say he was considering the X as he closed down for his own call. That tells me it was at least borderline. I'm not saying T would have been the right call, the decision to go intentional would have to stand on its own aside from dead ball status. From there, you decide whether to ignore or T.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, he did say he was considering the X as he closed down for his own call. That tells me it was at least borderline. I'm not saying T would have been the right call, the decision to go intentional would have to stand on its own aside from dead ball status. From there, you decide whether to ignore or T.

I don't see that in the OP at all.....it appears to me that he only thought of that AFTER his partner called the foul on the other player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't see that in the OP at all.....it appears to me that he only thought of that AFTER his partner called the foul on the other player.

Post 5, in response to bob.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Post 5, in response to bob.

Fair enough...it was not in the OP.....but if I'm thinking X and my partner says I've got it, I'm going to be talking about it anyway.....regardless of what I think my partner has.