Make the call

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I'd love to see that change, but I think it would have to be worded differently, as a substitute that enters illegally becomes a player once he's on the court during a live ball.

It wouldn't be that hard, though. "GT includes: A member of the bench or a waiting substitute who enters the court during live play and contacts a try or fouls a player attempting a try." I might even include stealing a ball that is about to be shot in the open court (think of a bench member or waiting sub coming on the court to grab the ball before the shooter can even gather).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd love to see that change, but I think it would have to be worded differently, as a substitute that enters illegally becomes a player once he's on the court during a live ball.

Does it really say that? Or does it say that a player who enters illegally becomes a player once the ball becomes live. That seems to imply an order of events...illegal entry (such as not being beckoned, etc.) then live ball. It says nothing about a substitute entering after the ball is already live. Is it possible that such a person never becomes a player?

[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.