DoG on Inbound throw-in

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not a valid comparison.

It is still a foul, a technical foul specifically, to clock someone in the face with an elbow even during a dead ball.

However, there is nothing illegal about contacting a ball that is dead.

That, of course, is not to say that the case play on this topic is wrong.....just that your example doesn't work.

I follow your argument, but don't agree with it.
However, this is a good exercise in criticial/logical thinking, so...to follow your lead, let me alter my example and ask further questions of you.

1. While A1 is holding a live ball inbounds near the FT line, A2 and B2 are battling for position near the basket. B2 excessively swings his arms/elbows and strikes A2 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. Excessive arm/elbow swinging violation with a technical foul for intentional/flagrant dead ball contact.
b. A common personal foul or an intentional/flagrant personal foul.

2. During a throw-in while A4 is holding the ball out-of-bounds, B4 steps across the boundary plane and punches A4 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. A breaking the plane violation by Team B and a dead ball flagrant technical foul.
b. A flagrant personal foul.

In both cases, who may attempt the FTs is different depending upon your answer, so this does matter and must be clearly covered by the rules.

I hope that you find these examples more satisfactory for comparison to MS's line of thinking.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I follow your argument, but don't agree with it.
However, this is a good exercise in criticial/logical thinking, so...to follow your lead, let me alter my example and ask further questions of you.

1. While A1 is holding a live ball inbounds near the FT line, A2 and B2 are battling for position near the basket. B2 excessively swings his arms/elbows and strikes A2 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. Excessive arm/elbow swinging violation with a technical foul for intentional/flagrant dead ball contact.
b. A common personal foul or an intentional/flagrant personal foul.

2. During a throw-in while A4 is holding the ball out-of-bounds, B4 steps across the boundary plane and punches A4 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. A breaking the plane violation by Team B and a dead ball flagrant technical foul.
b. A flagrant personal foul.

In both cases, who may attempt the FTs is different depending upon your answer, so this does matter and must be clearly covered by the rules.

I hope that you find these examples more satisfactory for comparison to MS's line of thinking.

Both good points.

However, in #1, the elbow violation is still a judgement call. So, you could easily ignore it, and be within the rules, and then call a personal foul of any type. There is also nothing in the rules that says you can't call the swing and then call the contact as a T. So, there is no rules justification for saying either one is the right call over the other one. There may be interpretations or philosophies that direct us to call it as a live ball foul, but it isn't required in the rules. Breaking the plane, on the other hand, is black/white, no judgement needed. They player either crossed the line or they didn't.

#2 is a much better example IMHO. (While that opens up the rules conflict where a punch is defined as a fight and a fight is declared to be a technical foul while live ball contact is defined as a personal foul, I'm going to ignore that issue). We do have a case play that says if it is one act, to treat it as the most severe of the possibilities. However, if it is clearly two actions, where B steps across the line and then in a 2nd movement, punched A4, I've got a plane violation and then a T. If, however, B4 swings from inbounds and through the plane and connecting in one motion, I have a flagrant T....per the case play directing us to treat one action as one infraction of the more severe type.

[Adam]

Camron, in the case where you'd call a violation followed by a T, would you be ok with two Ts if there had already been a DOG warning?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, in the case where you'd call a violation followed by a T, would you be ok with two Ts if there had already been a DOG warning?

I would not.....but even if I were, the first one would be a team T with the 2nd being an individual T.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is bad basketball everywhere and I see a lot of it during every season. A lot of very bad coached teams I will see every season as well.

But you said that this was ignored as if that it was only not being called because people decided not to call this violation of the rules. I just do not work a lot of basketball where this is even an issue. And I think it is more the case because older players know better, than how well coached they are.

Peace

I'm not talking about you or probably anyone else on this board. I have had conversations with other guys in my area that have told me they won't call various things, and this is one of the ones I have heard. I'm not saying everyone ignores it, I'm saying that some ignore it. Take that how you want.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In high school games?

One was a JV game, I'm pretty sure the other was a Varsity game. It has been a few years.

[Adam]

Ok, I don't think two incidents really contradicts Rut's main point here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I have had conversations with other guys in my area that have told me they won't call various things, and this is one of the ones I have heard.

I won't call a multiple foul. Everything else is up to the players, and coaches, and is fair game for me to call.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by zm1283

...guys in my area that have told me they won't call various things...

If there were a LIKE button here I would not click on it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I'm not talking about you or probably anyone else on this board. I have had conversations with other guys in my area that have told me they won't call various things, and this is one of the ones I have heard. I'm not saying everyone ignores it, I'm saying that some ignore it. Take that how you want.

Then you need to be more clear that this is really an area thing. In my area I do not know anyone that has been told or says they would not call this. After all it is very rare that it would need to be called other than maybe levels lower than high school. I know I would call it at any level if it happens. I even tell players that if they reach across they are in threat of a technical foul and players seem to listen to that "threat." Then again that is my experience. Your experience might be totally different.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then you need to be more clear that this is really an area thing. In my area I do not know anyone that has been told or says they would not call this. After all it is very rare that it would need to be called other than maybe levels lower than high school. I know I would call it at any level if it happens. I even tell players that if they reach across they are in threat of a technical foul and players seem to listen to that "threat." Then again that is my experience. Your experience might be totally different.

Peace

Exactly, there are some calls that while I'm willing to call them if they happen, they just don't happen often.

While I don't want to be the first guy in Colorado to call a ten second violation on a ft in a high school game, I've got no problem with other rare calls.

[reffish]

You mean not this DoG?

[Welpe]

That's funny. That's a mole...as in whack a mole.

[BillyMac]

Would anyone consider the barking dog play unsporting, and deserving of a technical foul?

[APG]

Originally Posted by billymac

would anyone consider the barking dog play unsporting, and deserving of a technical foul?

whack!

[Multiple Sports]

+1.... I hope that the AD would suspend that coach a game for that behavior!!!! But anyway a good technical foul is in order !!!!

Note from AllPurposeGamer: Keep the politics out of this thread