Who throws a shoe!?
 

Honestly!

<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?playerBrandingId=4ef8000cbaf34c1687a7d9a 26fe0e89e&adSetCode=91cDU6NuXTGKz3OdjOxFdAgJVtQcKJ nI&pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:9968135&thr uParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

What would you have here?

T, easy. No question.

Just when you think you've seen it all........
 

A T for unsporting conduct.

Funny enough, the NBA has a case book exactly for this situation...count the basket for whatever its value is taken from...then charge an unsporting T to the player.

Count the basket if he makes the shoe? :eek::D

Interesting. Whether or not the shoe hits the ball?

Not really any rules basis for counting the basket in NFHS or NCAA-W that I can think of...but the T is pretty easy.

I like it!

The question comes to my mind, what/when was the situation that prompted the Case Play?

APG - you know how old it is or when it came about? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yup, hitting the ball is of no importance..in fact, the ball wouldn't even have to be released...also true for any object thrown and it applies to bench players, coaches, or trainers. The NBA rule cited is 2-3 (elastic powers) to count the basket.

No idea when the case play came out. It probably occurred before 2005-2006 as this play is in that case book though back then, counting the basket only applied if the ball was released.

Officials in a playoff game last year applied this ruling after a bench player (accidently?) threw a towel at an opponent who was shooting a 3-pointer. They correctly applied the play.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

As Mel B Would Say ...
 

Close? It's spot on.

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

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.

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???:confused:

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.

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.