Foul with ball dead and clock running

[JeffTheRef]

Greetings, Collective Wisdom:

Under Federation rules, when a field goal goes through the basket, the ball is then dead until the other team has it at their disposal, correct? What, then, is the nature of a foul committed before the other team has the ball at their disposal?

TIA

[canuckrefguy]

Fouls during dead ball periods are generally technical fouls. The clock running shouldn't matter, I believe. The definition of "dead ball" includes the period after a made basket but before the team has possession OOB.

I don't have a rulebook handy, so can't quote chapter and verse.

I'm sure someone with more encyclopedic rule knowledge will be along shortly. Padgett, where are you? Tormenting another realtor?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
Greetings, Collective Wisdom:

Under Federation rules, when a field goal goes through the basket, the ball is then dead until the other team has it at their disposal, correct? What, then, is the nature of a foul committed before the other team has the ball at their disposal?

TIA

Wow, we were just discussing this very subject in the car coming home from a game tonight. I mean this exact play. Spooky!!

Look at case book 10.3.9.

Joe, see what I mean about this board!?!?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Padgett, where are you? Tormenting another realtor?

No, it's late so I'm tormenting my wife.

Anyway, NF 4-19-1 note "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter." If it is ruled intentional or flagrant during a dead ball, then it is a technical foul against that player (NF 10-3-9). Of course, a flagrant foul, regardless of whether personal or technical, includes ejection.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

No, it's late so I'm tormenting my wife.

Anyway, NF 4-19-1 note "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter." If it is ruled intentional or flagrant during a dead ball, then it is a technical foul against that player (NF 10-3-9). Of course, a flagrant foul, regardless of whether personal or technical, includes ejection.

Just reading this rule when Mark posts it. It's interesting that the interpretation is "ignore contact unless it's really bad", as opposed to "any contact is a technical" which is what one hears sometimes. (hint, hint, Joe)

[JeffTheRef]

My partner made the call - as a common foul. I paused the game to talk it over with him, but didn't feel compelled to do anything about it since the game was not at risk and the coaches were oblivious. I momentarily convinced myself that the clock running somehow distinguished the situation. Gee, rationalizing on the fly. Weak! I will sin no more . . .

[rainmaker]

Here's the reason we were talking about it last night.

In our second game, first quarter, Team A shooting two. As the first shot goes up, B1 reaches out puts his hand firmly in the chest of A2 and just shoves him backwards. Notice I said, "FIRST SHOT." That was not a typo. He fouled on the first of two. I called a foul, and then my partner told me it had to be either a technical or an intentional. We decided that we didn't want to deal with the fall-out of that, and Coach A was oblivious, so we shot it as a common foul.

Talking about it on the way home, we couldn't remember what the rule was. The ball was live, but the clock was stopped. I felt like calling a T for idiocy, but didn't think that would fly. Looking through the book last night, I couldn't find an exact reference. Any suggestions?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Here's the reason we were talking about it last night.

In our second game, first quarter, Team A shooting two. As the first shot goes up, B1 reaches out puts his hand firmly in the chest of A2 and just shoves him backwards. Notice I said, "FIRST SHOT." That was not a typo. He fouled on the first of two. I called a foul, and then my partner told me it had to be either a technical or an intentional. We decided that we didn't want to deal with the fall-out of that, and Coach A was oblivious, so we shot it as a common foul.

Talking about it on the way home, we couldn't remember what the rule was. The ball was live, but the clock was stopped. I felt like calling a T for idiocy, but didn't think that would fly. Looking through the book last night, I couldn't find an exact reference. Any suggestions?

Juulie,take a look at casebook play 4.19.2(c).It's just a simple personal foul.If A's in the bonus,A1 will shoot his second shot with the lane clear,then A2 shoots the bonus with the teams lined up.If A isn't in the bonus,A1 shoots his second FT with the lane clear,then team A gets the ball OOB on the baseline for a spot throw-in.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 24th, 2003 at 11:08 AM]

[zebraman]

Julie,

AS JR said, the ball was live so you could just call it as a common foul. Technically, I suppose it's termed a "false multiple foul" since one team fouled twice and the clock never started following the first.

From your description, it sounds like it might have been an intentional foul. A technical foul might have even been a good call to send a message and prevent further "shenanigans."

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman

From your description, it sounds like it might have been an intentional foul. A technical foul might have even been a good call to send a message and prevent further "shenanigans."

Z

Z,y'all can't call it a T.It's a live ball,contact foul-so,by rule,it has to be a personal foul of some kind-either common,intentional or flagrant.An intentional personal foul would probably send the same message as a T-i.e. 2 shots and the ball.Not a bad idea at all in this case,where a player's getting a whack in on the first of 2 shots.

[JeffTheRef]

as when you've handed the ball to the inbounder? Clock is stopped, but the ball is now alive, so a foul is . . . unless there's something malicious about it . . . just a common foul.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Z [/B]

Z,y'all can't call it a T.It's a live ball,contact foul-so,by rule,it has to be a personal foul of some kind-either common,intentional or flagrant.An intentional personal foul would probably send the same message as a T-i.e. 2 shots and the ball.Not a bad idea at all in this case,where a player's getting a whack in on the first of 2 shots. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ever hear of an unsportsmanlike act while the ball is live?

Z

[canuckrefguy]

In this case, I don't think it would be classed as unsportsmanlike, although it would depend on interpretation from Juulie (she was there).

This is one of those calls where it makes sense to treat it as a T, but by the rulebook, is only a common foul.

Obviously the guy zoned out and forgot there was two shots. Unless the contact was severe/flagrant, I might even be willing to pass on calling a foul, unless it's needed to maintain control. If the kid just brain-cramped for a moment, maybe let it go.

Just my $0.02 (or $0.001 US)

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman

Ever hear of an unsportsmanlike act while the ball is live?

An unsportsmanlike act is a non-contact foul.

4-19-13
An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct. Acts of deceit such as accepting a teammate' s foul or free throw, faking being fouled, use of profane or inappropriate language or gestures are unsporting.

[zebraman]

Technically you're right as usual Tony. But two things I might consider in this case:

1) It's summer league and what better way to nip it in the bud that with a quick T?

2) Fighting is a T and that is contact that could happen during a live ball. If I need to send a message, I'm going to consider it fighting or taunting and call it a T.

Z