Make the call
 

A potential Louisiana test question. What say the great minds on this forum?

With time running out in the 4th quarter, Team B scores giving them a 3-point lead. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 near the sideline in front of Team B's bench. A2 releases a 3-point try prior to the horn sounding. Substitute B6 enters the court and blocks the shot. Official charges B6 with a technical foul for entering the court illegally and a second technical foul for unsporting conduct. This ruling is correct.

Yes, it's correct. I think it's directly from a case play or interp.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

I Am A Blind Official (IAABO) ...
 

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

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.

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).

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?

Make the call
 

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

Can bench personnel commit a personal foul?

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.

Three On A Match ...
 

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

Pile on. 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. :p:rolleyes:

Nothing To See Here Folks, Please Just Move Along ...
 

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.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7355/1...eebc2e9b_m.jpg

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

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.

*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.

I'm Out Of Order ??? You're Out Of Order ...
 

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?

Ready, Set, Wait ...
 

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.?

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

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.

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

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?

Ejection Seat ???
 

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