I have to agree, there is no rules support for counting this as a 3 point basket or giving 3 shots, even taking into consideration GT or BI. The only option supported by rule is to call a T and give 2 shots and the ball. The rule might not be fair or just, but that is not our problem as officials.

Note to self: Ask the T about this play at next year's Big East camp! :D

I think two T's (4 shots) can be justified. The case play (2005-2006 I think) where the bench player enters the court and blocks the 3 point try ends with this: "COMMENT: Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act."

Clearly the intent is to prevent such "loopholes" from being advantageous. I penalize twice based on 10-3-6. This states that an unsporting foul "includes but is not limited too" what is listed. I've two T's for unsporting behavior.

What are the two Ts? The case you are referring to has two separate infractions that each can be given a technical foul. The play in this video has one infraction. I see no justification for giving out 2 technicals. I can see going with a flagrant technical.

I'd be using 2-3 to extend the intent of "when a player touches". I believe we'd call goaltending if a player blocked a shot with his (otherwise legal) armband or finger-split, even though technically the shot was not blocked by a player's skin. I don't think it's that farfetched to include his shoe.

In the three-point, end-of-game hypothetical of all the options we have I don’t think calling two Ts is the best of them. I’d go the route of awarding the goal and calling a T. Award the goal based on either 2-3 if the ball was on its way up or 2-3 and 4-22 if it was on its way down. The T falls under 10-3-6.

As for the suggestion in the OP or the hypothetical that it could be called flagrant, thereby allowing you to run the player on one whistle, 4-19-4 really doesn’t seem to apply in this case (A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act).

There wasn't any rules support for the two Ts on the player leaving the bench, either.

So 1 T for delaying the game and 1 T for unsporting acts.

I disagree Bob. You can give 1 T for leaving the bench. This T can be given whether or not this player ever gets involved in the play. You can give a second T for the unsporting act of trying to block the shot when you are not a legal player.

How are you giving a delay of game T in the video?

The shoe throwing could be classified as extreme. The or in the rule means it doesn't have to be both extreme and persistent, just one of the above.

Here is the NBA play mentioned earlier:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_EYpweshidQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It could but – and this could just be me – but when I think of flagrant fouls I think of something directed at another player, bench personnel or one of the officials. If the noncontact action here was throwing the ball at someone, fine. Throwing the ball at a try is unsporting but not to the level of immediately tossing a player, IMO.

In something completely unusual that isn't covered by the rules I’m looking at the overall goal of applying the penalty. If Team A is down three and A1 is shooting a three at the buzzer when B1 contacts the try with his/her flying shoe, the goal would be give Team A a chance to recover what it lost: an opportunity to tie and/or win the game while penalizing B1’s behavior. In the video in the OP since the ball wasn’t contacted the goal is to penalize B1 for doing something unsporting/dumb.

Jetmet, I get what your saying. I wouldn't have called this flagrant either. I was just pointing out that somebody could rule it flagrant and they would be supported by the rules.

I also understand what you are saying about a 3 at the end of the game and that the punishment for the offending team might actually be advantageous to them rather than the offended team. I am just saying that we cannot nor should we make our decisions based on what we (heck even most people) would consider fair. That isn't our job. Our job is to enforce the rules as written and apply them as best we can to the situation at hand whether or not we think it is fair or not isn't relevant. Now we can disagree as to how far we can stretch certain rules to fit this particular play. I don't fault you for trying to stretch the rules to make a equitable decision, but I haven't seen an argument yet that has convinced me to use any of the rule options presented so far to make that leap.

Honestly, in this hypothetical, 2-3 is sufficient. And in such a manifestly unfair act, I have no issue basinga 2-3 decision on what I think is fair.

You'll find a lot of disagreement on this point. As I see it our job as officials is to make sure the game is played fairly, according to the rules. This is one of the cases where applying the spirit of the rules is more important than going precisely by the book.

It is not for us to make personal judgments as to what is fair or not. The rules are in place so that game can be played fairly by both teams. I wouldn't use the spirit of the rules as a reason for making or not making a call when you are discussing with a coach. They are not going to care how you interpret the spirit of the rule and your assignor will not be able to defend your actions in that case either. As I said before, I am all for stretching rules to fit the situation at hand, but I haven't seen a compelling argument for using any of the rule options yet that I would be comfortable applying. And yes I believe there is a difference between applying the spirit of the rules to do what is fair and stretching the rules based on ones judgment of what happened on the play.

As an example from what was discussed in regards to this play. I would not call a flagrant technical on this play. If the offended coach asked my why I would tell them the action of throwing the shoe does not meet the criteria of being extreme or persistent. That would be my judgment. I would not tell them I don't think ejecting the player is fair or that it is within the spirit of the rule.