Make the call

[RefAHallic]

Me and guys I know locally haven't found a casebook play.

[APG]

From the 2005-2006 NFHS Basketball Interpretations:

SITUATION 12: Team B has just scored to go up by three points with time running out in the fourth quarter. Player A1 inbounds the ball to A2 close to the sideline of Team B's bench. A2 releases a three-point try just prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B7 leaves the bench area, enters the court and blocks the shot.

RULING: B7 shall be charged with two technical fouls and ejected. One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct. Any member of Team A may shoot the four free throws for the technical fouls. The results of these free throws will determine if the game is over or going into overtime. COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act. (10-4-1; 10-4-2)

Archives of past interpretations can be found in this thread:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

[RefAHallic]

Wow! That far back to find a reference. Thanks. Will share with local colleagues. Anyone disagree? There wasn't a consensus here.

[APG]

What did your colleague's that disagreed suggest? And no I don't disagree with the interpretation...you have to find a way to give the offended team at least a chance to get the 3 points it was trying to obtain through the penalization.

[RefAHallic]

You and I agree on the same ruling. Others were sure how, but felt you had to come up with some way of giving the team at least 4FTs otherwise the unsporting act sealed the win. Those that have disagreed do so on the point of issuing the two separate technicals.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefAHallic

You and I agree on the same ruling. Others were sure how, but felt you had to come up with some way of giving the team at least 4FTs otherwise the unsporting act sealed the win. Those that have disagreed do so on the point of issuing the two separate technicals.

It's harder to justify granting four shots for one foul than to justify two technical fouls. It's a special situation that requires some special thinking. Short of awarding the three point goal, there's not much else you can do. Whether you give the 2nd T to the same player, or to the coach for failing to control his bench, both would require the same stretch.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's harder to justify granting four shots for one foul than to justify two technical fouls. It's a special situation that requires some special thinking. Short of awarding the three point goal, there's not much else you can do. Whether you give the 2nd T to the same player, or to the coach for failing to control his bench, both would require the same stretch.

Hmmm...I think you're onto something here.

There is a case for awarding a shot that is blocked when there should be no chance at blocking the ball....a FT. And that is a T on the player.

I think the GT rule could , with some mental gymnastics, be extended to cover this situation...and call a T just for good measure. For that matter, they could expand GT to cover any shot touched by a team member who is not a player. That would solve this forever.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RefAHallic

Wow! That far back to find a reference. Thanks. Will share with local colleagues. Anyone disagree? There wasn't a consensus here.

I don't think it will be a test question.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't think it will be a test question.

Why not? Our IAABO Refresher Exam often has "weirder" questions, situations that only happen once every fifty years, or, never.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

One technical foul is assessed for entering the court without permission and one for unsporting conduct.

How about a third technical for playing with more than five players?

Pile on. Why not? Seriously. Why not?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about a third technical for playing with more than five players?

Why not? Seriously. Why not?

And if you get out a ruler, you could probably figure out a way to say that he entered with an illegal uniform for one more T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And if you get out a ruler, you could probably figure out a way to say that he entered with an illegal uniform for one more T.

I'm a real stickler for "Fashion Police" rules in regard to headbands, wristbands, jewelry, undershirts, arm sleeves, leg sleeves, etc., but no way that I'm going to go out there and measure jerseys for letter size, piping, logos, etc. As much as I hate to say this, I don't even know those rules as well as I probably should.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And if you get out a ruler, you could probably figure out a way to say that he entered with an illegal uniform for one more T.

You don't even need a ruler if he is wearing a warmup.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

You don't even need a ruler if he is wearing a warmup.

Don't you just hate it when players go through the layup lines in warmups and then a substitute tries to enter and has an illegal undershirt, etc.? Or even worse, when the starters come out for the jump ball, and now we spot an illegal undershirt, etc.?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about a third technical for playing with more than five players?

Pile on. Why not? Seriously. Why not?

Because the interpretation tells you not to?

And we tend not to penalize one action with multiple technical fouls...if Team B already had a DOG warning, and B1 reaches across and hits the thrower on arm, we aren't going to give Team A four shots for B1 simultaneously committing an intentional foul and a second delay of game warning for his team.