Player Unties Another's Shoe During FT

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Does this action involve physical contact during a live ball?

Even I give you more credit than this question.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

If you call this an intentional personal foul, you would be in such the vast minority. Making that would literally be the definition of a pioneer call.

Let's not kid ourselves. If any type of foul call is going to be made, it's going to be an unsporting T. No one is going to split hairs as to a player technically touching a player's shoe or shoelaces.

I posted what I did because what type of foul is charged could be very important. How so?: 1. the shooter is either already determined or the offended team gets to select (usually a top FT shooter). 2. it could impact a DQ situation.
What if the player already has a T from earlier in the game? What if he gets one later?
I was simply trying to make people think, instead of just react. Btw there is NFHS rules support for charging a T here. I'll post it tomorrow if someone else doesn't.

[JetMetFan]

1. the shooter is either already determined or the offended team gets to select (usually a top FT shooter). Not my problem. I'm not the knucklehead who untied an opponent's sneaker
2. it could impact a DQ situation. see response to #1
What if the player already has a T from earlier in the game? see response to #1
What if he gets one later? see response to #1

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What kind of foul do you assess for a non-basketball play, away from the ball, which involves physical contact during a live ball?

Intentional, flagrant. This to me is more unsportsmanlike than physical. What if a player ties an opponents shoelaces together?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

Intentional, flagrant. This to me is more unsportsmanlike than physical. What if a player ties an opponents shoelaces together?

Then the player gets a contract from the Harlem Globetrotters.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then the player gets a contract from the Harlem Globetrotters.

What Bob said!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

What if a player ties an opponents shoelaces together?

What if one player gives another a hotfoot? Wait? I'm being told ... What? Baseball? Never mind.

[Rob1968]

So, the NBE fined him $50,000. Did they figure that by the lace at $25,00/ each . . . Even the latest Nikes aren't that much . . .

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

So, the NBE fined him $50,000. Did they figure that by the lace at $25,00/ each . . . Even the latest Nikes aren't that much . . .

After he did it hw was warned by the league and by his coach. He then tried to do it again. That is when he was fined. I have heard some say he was joking on the second attempt. Even if he was apparently the nba didn't find it funny.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I posted what I did because what type of foul is charged could be very important. How so?: 1. the shooter is either already determined or the offended team gets to select (usually a top FT shooter). 2. it could impact a DQ situation.
What if the player already has a T from earlier in the game? What if he gets one later?
I was simply trying to make people think, instead of just react. Btw there is NFHS rules support for charging a T here. I'll post it tomorrow if someone else doesn't.

3.3.7 SITUATION B:

A1 discovers she is bleeding and intentionally wipes blood on the arm of the both B4 and B5. In (a) neither the referee or umpire observes the bleeding or the action of A1; (b) U1 observes that A1 is bleeding from a cut on her arm; (c) U1 observes B4 and B5 with blood on their arm; or (d) U1 observes A1 bleeding, and observes A1's action of wiping blood on the arm of B4 and B5.

RULING: In (a), A1 must leave the game when the bleeding is discovered; (b) A1 must leave the game when bleeding is observed; (c) B4 and B5 must leave the game when blood is observed on their person; (d) A1, B4 and B5 must leave the game and, A1 is charged with a technical foul for an unsporting act. If in the judgment of U1 the actions of A1 were flagrant, A1 would be disqualified from further competition. Any player or legally entering substitute may attempt the two free throws, after which B will have the ball for a division line throw-in. In all situations, a team may call a time-out to keep a player in the game.

TV Teddy Valentine would have tossed him out to the next state as he does not play!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that it sometimes involves contact doesn't change the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Actually, I think that it does. An "Unsporting Foul", as defined in 4-19, is a non-contact foul. So if there is contact, you cannot assess it as an unsporting or "unsportsmanlike" foul (a term which I don't think is actually used in the rulebook).

Having said that, I would not consider contact with an opponent's shoelaces to be "contact" for the purposes of personal vs technical fouls.

[Scrapper1]

I should also have added, that I have indeed given a technical foul for attempting to untie an opponent's shoes during a live ball.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Actually, I think that it does. An "Unsporting Foul", as defined in 4-19, is a non-contact foul. So if there is contact, you cannot assess it as an unsporting or "unsportsmanlike" foul (a term which I don't think is actually used in the rulebook).

I would have it as unsporting. I wouldn't be penalizing the "contact" with the shoe lace. I'd be penalizing the unsporting act of attempting to untie someone's shoes.

It would be no different than if I had one player bump into each other after a held ball and yell "F*** you". My technical will be unsporting, even though there was some contact on the play that I may choose not to penalize if it wasn't severe.

[jeschmit]

Two words: Double knot.