Make the call

APG will almost certainly correct me, but I think the NBA rule is to count the shot and charge a technical. I couldn't find a copy of the 2013-14 casebook, and couldn't find a situation like that in the 2012-13 casebook. My guess is that this is treated kinda like the Tony Allen-Derek Fisher towel-throwing play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

APG will almost certainly correct me, but I think the NBA rule is to count the shot and charge a technical. I couldn't find a copy of the 2013-14 casebook, and couldn't find a situation like that in the 2012-13 casebook. My guess is that this is treated kinda like the Tony Allen-Derek Fisher towel-throwing play.

While this situation isn't covered exactly in the case book (the plays in last year and this year's case book involve a player throwing a shoe at the ball or bench personnel touching the shooter), I do believe the NBA would want this situation handled as you've said...count the basket (whatever the shot was worth) even if unsuccessful, and charge an unsportsmanlike T on B6 and toss him.

[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.

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by habram

My Question in reference to this situation.

If the shooter was fouled , would the team receive 5 shots

3 for being fouled on a 3pt shot and 2 for the technical

*NFHS 4-1-1 says a personal foul is a player foul...
*4-19-5a says a technical foul is "a foul by a nonplayer."
*4-34-1 says a player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except intermission so the rule book deals with why you can’t award three shots for the single foul in this situation. The penalty for a technical foul is two shots and the ball at the division line. The ruling in the case play deals with the inequity: two technicals.

Interestingly, by rule you can’t call a flagrant foul – meaning you wouldn’t be able to kick out the player on just one call – since NFHS defines those as “a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct.” The OP doesn’t sound violent and it also involves a contact foul. It can, however, be intentional.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

We tend not to penalize one action with multiple technical fouls.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, isn't that what we're doing in the interpretation? The interpretation does set some limits, but what rule is this limit based on?

[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

I'm playing devil's advocate here, isn't that what we're doing in the interpretation? The interpretation does set some limits, but what rule is this limit based on?

I would see it as two acts...running onto the court...WHACK...then blocking the shot...second act and WHACK.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm playing devil's advocate here, isn't that what we're doing in the interpretation? The interpretation does set some limits, but what rule is this limit based on?

The rule of rationale thought, so that the officials in the game don't spend an hour determining how to penalize the entirety of the act.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

*NFHS 4-1-1 says a personal foul is a player foul...
*4-19-5a says a technical foul is "a foul by a nonplayer."
*4-34-1 says a player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except intermission so the rule book deals with why you can’t award three shots for the single foul in this situation. The penalty for a technical foul is two shots and the ball at the division line. The ruling in the case play deals with the inequity: two technicals.

Interestingly, by rule you can’t call a flagrant foul – meaning you wouldn’t be able to kick out the player on just one call – since NFHS defines those as “a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct.” The OP doesn’t sound violent and it also involves a contact foul. It can, however, be intentional.

Just rule the first act as unacceptable enough to warrant it flagrant.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

From the 2005-2006 NFHS Basketball Interpretations:

[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)

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

Interesting. I thought that players were always "disqualified" and not Ejected as they remain on the bench and do not leave the visual confines of the playing area. The above ruling, if taken verbatim from the book would contradict this. Thoughts?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Interesting. I thought that players were always "disqualified" and not Ejected as they remain on the bench and do not leave the visual confines of the playing area. The above ruling, if taken verbatim from the book would contradict this. Thoughts?

Agree. Poor wording. Probably means ejected from the game.