Player Unties Another's Shoe During FT
 

JR Smith Unties Shawn Marion's Shoe During Dirk FT - YouTube

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_qJMZHFFgEM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you see this as it's happening, you got anything? Would you blow your whistle? Stern talking to? Unsporting T?

Tea time.

WHACK...!!! (Probably...I hate answers that are absolute)

However, if I saw something that leads me to believe it was more harmless...such as a prank between two players that know each other (maybe they play on a "club" team together), then I might only give a stern warning. This would be due to the potential for delay of game or possible disconcertion of the shooter. But probably...WHACK...!!!

Does this action involve physical contact during a live ball?

Contact with the shoe laces? Go for it, I'm calling a T.

+1, unsportsmanlike behavior.

To me...it's a form of taunting. I would place this type of action along side stepping over an opponent that's on the ground. Yes...these actions are not always illegal. But in this specific instance the action is intentional physical contact by a player that is designed to provoke a response from an opponent. It is inappropriate and has nothing to do with the game of basketball.

WHACKABILITY FACTOR = 9 (out of 10...in my opinion) if deemed unsporting.

It's only a T if the player's mother comes out of the stands and unties his opponent's shoe.

NCAA Rule 9 Art 2 (e)

(Actions take place during a live ball.)
What would you call if a player pulled the hair of an opponent? How about untucked his jersey? Would you deem an OOB violation if the hair or shoelace of a player contacted a boundary line?

In regards to OOB, yes.

Also, untying an opponent's shoe is not a T in my opinion.

What is it?

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

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.

You know as well as anyone that unsportsmanlike conduct is a T whether the ball is live or not. The fact that it sometimes involves contact doesn't change the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct. It is still a T.

The presented play is not a hold, it is not a push, it is not any of the types of personal fouls as far as I can tell. Most "non-basketball" fouls involve types of contact that is normally defined as a common foul but is not a play on the ball. They are rarely unsportsmanlike, however.

I have no problem with someone calling a T for a player pulling another player's shoelace during a FT.

Even I give you more credit than this question.

Peace

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.

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

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

Then the player gets a contract from the Harlem Globetrotters.

What Bob said!

Pants On Fire ...
 

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Two words: Double knot.

Not a good example as that is dead ball contact which can be ignored by rule unless it is intentional or flagrant.

True. But that was my point (i'll admit not the best analogy). I would not be giving the technical because of contact with the shoelace (someone could touch someones shoelace in an attempt to let them know that it was untied). The technical in my opinion is the doing something to an opponent that is done in an unsporting manner.

So what kind of foul do you assess for a two-handed shove in the back during a breakaway layup? Do you think such an action is sporting?

How about if a player grabs an opponent by the hair during play, either to stop a try for goal or during rebounding action?

Intentional (or Flagrant if I thought it rose to that level) for both cases.

I don't see how that is anything close to untying someone's shoe away from the play.

How about this ...Player A loses a headband going up the court. Player B picks up the headband and 1) in a friendly manner, puts the headband back on the head of Player A or 2) Puts the headband on the head of player A over his/her eyes in an unsporting manner.

I have nothing in #1
I have an unsporting technical in #2. It's not the intentional contact that I am calling, it is the unsporting act. If someone wants to argue that it is a live ball so it has to be intentional, I can see that, but I just disagree in this case (and the case of the shoe untying). In my opinion unsporting act of untying an opponents shoe causes the ball to become dead (not the officials whistle), much like it would if a player curses on the court.

Intentional or flagrant WHAT? You leave out the important part!

How about a player deliberately tripping an opponent during a live ball with the only contact being shoe-to-shoe?

What exactly is the standard that you are using to make your decisions?

The distinction is whether it is the contact that makes it a foul or some other element. In the shoelace example, they could touch the shoelace all day and it wouldn't be a foul of any kind. It is the intent of trying to untie is that becomes unsportsmanlike. The amount of contact just doesn't rise to the level of a contact foul...but it is unsportsmanlike.

In the the two-hand shove in the back case, it is the magnitude and type of contact that makes is an intentional/flagrant personal foul....the same points of contact with only very slight pressure wouldn't even be a foul.

Intentional (or Flagrant) Personal foul ... sorry I thought that was obvious in the case of a shove to the back. Two shots and ball at spot nearest to foul.

Camron Rust just summarized (better than I could) what I was thinking. The standard I'm using is to determine what exactly needs to be penalized. In the case of a shove during a layup, I am penalizing the act of shoving (intentional/flagrant personal). In the case of a untying a shoe, I'd be penalizing the unsporting act, not the touching of the shoelace (technical).