Who throws a shoe!?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Precisely. Any super bizarre play like this was never considered when the rules were written for likely scenarios. 2-3 is in there for exactly these kinds of things. We are charged with doing the "right" thing and not with trying to shoehorn a square action into any one of a set of round rules.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

Believe me, I'm not going to tell the coach of either team why the decision was made other than to say, "Coach, there's nothing in the rule book that covers this exact situation so here's what we're going to do." When I try to hash things out with my partner(s) before we deal with the coaches that's another story. I'm sure we'd discuss it in within the context of the rules but in a 2-3 situation we're usually trying to come up with something that's fair to all involved...or at least as fair as we can be.

[KJUmp]

Being that this was an NCAAW game...can anyone post the applicable NCAAW rule (if any) that would cover this play?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Being that this was an NCAAW game...can anyone post the applicable NCAAW rule (if any) that would cover this play?

There isn't any in any code. The closest thing would be 10-3-1 (commiting an unsportsmanlike act).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The closest thing would be 10-3-1 (commiting an unsportsmanlike act).

Close? It's spot on.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Close? It's spot on.

Yeah, I know. I meant nothing like "a player is not allowed to throw her shoe at a try."

[OKREF]

I'm doing this. If the shot is on the way down, and the shoe hits the ball, I am awarding the points, either 2 or 3, and also assessing a technical foul. If it doesn't hit the ball, or it hits while on the upward flight just the technical foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm doing this. If the shot is on the way down, and the shoe hits the ball, I am awarding the points, either 2 or 3, and also assessing a technical foul. If it doesn't hit the ball, or it hits while on the upward flight just the technical foul.

Are you talking about the OP, or the modified version with time expired and the game tying three point shot in question?

In the game tying situation, regardless of where in the arc the shoe hits the ball, I'm probably going to call two Ts or just award three shots for the one T. Alternatively, I might just score the basket and call a single T.

[Sharpshooternes]

If the ball is on the way down, I have goaltending plus a T. No contact from the shoe on the ball I have just a T. If the ball is on the way up and the shoe contacts the ball, I have a T and ..... ummm, errrr, something else???

Especially in the last few seconds of the 4th quarter and the team ahead by 2 or 3 tries this you have to do something more than a single T. I can't say I agree with 3 technical Free throws. I am more inclined for issuing 2 T's, one for unsporting conduct (throwing a shoe) and another for unsporting conduct (illegally using equipment). Flagrant doesn't solve your problem nor do I think it is fair for the shoe thrower. 2 T's I am ok with, then they aren't suspended for the next game as well. I think we are relatively supported by rules for a contact on the way down and a no contact at all situation, so let's come up with something fair for contact on the way up that we can support by rule. Good luck.

I do think the penalty should be more severe than 1 T though or every team would use this as an end of game strategy to seal a victory.
We should adopt the NBA case ruling. That would make our job easy peasy lemon squeasy.

[APG]

A player's potential playing status would have no affect on me in regards to calling a flagrant T or not on this play. In fact, doing something so outside the bounds of what is sporting in the game, like on this play, means that IMO, the player doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not worried, in particular, about the "fairness" afforded to the shoe thrower. And I'm not sure how things work in your state, but here, the state will suspend for 2 T's as well as a flagrant.

And to me, if you're going to say goaltending if the ball is on the way down, I'm doing it on the way up on this play.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

A player's potential playing status would have no affect on me in regards to calling a flagrant T or not on this play. In fact, doing something so outside the bounds of what is sporting in the game, like on this play, means that IMO, the player doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not worried, in particular, about the "fairness" afforded to the shoe thrower. And I'm not sure how things work in your state, but here, the state will suspend for 2 T's as well as a flagrant.

And to me, if you're going to say goaltending if the ball is on the way down, I'm doing it on the way up on this play.

I don't really care about a players potential status for other games either. I just don't think this particular situation warrants a flagrant foul. TBH, I will have to check to see if they are suspended for 2 Ts. They are for sure for flagrant. Either way you do it 1 T or 1 Flagrant, this doesn't make it fair for the offended team. That's why I would prefer to charge 2 Ts or GT plus shots to give them a fair shot at getting the points they attempted.

I agree with you and I think goal tending on the way up or down in this situation plus a T would be the most appropriate and defensible ruling on this particular play.