Who throws a shoe!?

[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.