Who throws a shoe!?

[johnny d]

I don't think you could count the basket in NFHS or NCAA even if the shoe hit the ball unless it was at a point where you could call GT or BI.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I don't think you could count the basket in NFHS or NCAA even if the shoe hit the ball unless it was at a point where you could call GT or BI.

I don't believe you could call it regardless, both rules explicitly state "... when a player touches ..."

Just have to suffice with the T and a "What in the heck were you thinking?!" look.

[just another ref]

I'm thinking flagrant here. I consider this unacceptable conduct.

[Adam]

OK, let's play the game.

A is down by 3 and launches a 3 point shot from the division line as time expires. B1, at about the FT line, throws his shoe and redirects the ball just enough to ensure it misses the basket.

For clarity, the ball is on its way down.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

OK, let's play the game.

A is down by 3 and launches a 3 point shot from the division line as time expires. B1, at about the FT line, throws his shoe and redirects the ball just enough to ensure it misses the basket.

For clarity, the ball is on its way down.

Count it and the Tech.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Count it and the Tech.

How? I agree absolutely that it should be this way, but how is it supported by rule? Do you think a thrown object can be read into "when a player touches" or would you be going to 2-3 "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules." to justify it?

Anyway to call something within the rules for failing to be properly equipped?

[johnny d]

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.

[JetMetFan]

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

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

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).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rekent

How? I agree absolutely that it should be this way, but how is it supported by rule? Do you think a thrown object can be read into "when a player touches" or would you be going to 2-3 "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules." to justify it?

Anyway to call something within the rules for failing to be properly equipped?

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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by rekent

I don't believe you could call it regardless, both rules explicitly state "... when a player touches ..."

Just have to suffice with the T and a "What in the heck were you thinking?!" look.

Interesting thought. If it was a 3 point attempt, would anyone find a way to penalize with 2 T's - 4 shots? (as in the case where the bench player comes onto the court to block the 3 point attempt). I would think this is a given if the shoe hits the ball, but what if it just clearly distracted the shooter?