Foul by the Thrower (Video)

Tech on W23 for the contact.

Unsporting tech on B5 for the stare-down.

[Adam]

Looks intentional to me. I don't mind a T here.

I would have a talk with #5, but that's about it from what I see.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Looks intentional to me. I don't mind a T here.

I would have a talk with #5, but that's about it from what I see.

Agree....INT, which becomes a T due to the dead ball. The kid knew exactly what he was doing. He was looking for a call but the one he got was quite a bit different than the one he hoped for.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree....INT, which becomes a T due to the dead ball. The kid knew exactly what he was doing. He was looking for a call but the one he got was quite a bit different than the one he hoped for.

I concur with your assessment that the thrower is seeking the contact and hoping to draw a significant penalty against his opponent. However, the action is nothing more than an illegal screen, thus in my opinion it would only warrant a common foul and therefore is ignored by rule during this dead ball period.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I concur with your assessment that the thrower is seeking the contact and hoping to draw a significant penalty against his opponent. However, the action is nothing more than an illegal screen, thus in my opinion it would only warrant a common foul and therefore is ignored by rule during this dead ball period.

I just can't see deliberately running into an opponent during a dead ball when there is no reason to do so as being just an illegal screen. It deliberate contact that is also a non-basketball play. If it were inadvertent, then sure, it would be nothing. But he was looking to cause trouble, not set a screen.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I just can't see deliberately running into an opponent during a dead ball when there is no reason to do so as being just an illegal screen. It deliberate contact that is also a non-basketball play. If it were inadvertent, then sure, it would be nothing. But he was looking to cause trouble, not set a screen.

There are lots of times when players attempt to draw fouls during games--offensive players with the ball do so frequently with pump fakes and jumping into defenders, shooters stick their arms and legs out, jump shooters flop upon returning to the floor. All of these are deliberate actions designed to draw a whistle, yet who would ever consider an intentional foul for such? So it can't be the mindset which we are judging, it must be the actual contact.

To me this contact isn't any different from a screener who moves into an opponent illegally or an offensive player driving to the basket in a block/charge situation.

In the video, neither player extends his arms or elbows, causes contact above the shoulders, or grabs and holds his opponent, and I don't view the amount of contact as excessive, so it doesn't rise to the level of an intentional foul in my mind.

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul. Justice is to use the rule instructing officials to ignore common contact during a dead ball and not reward his unscrupulous attempt.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul.

I don't think the kid was trying to draw a foul at all. I think he was simply trying to knock his opponent into the basket support and act like it was an accident. I think it was a deliberate, malicious act. What if B5 had punched him? Would you kick both out of the game? I would.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There are lots of times when players attempt to draw fouls during games--offensive players with the ball do so frequently with pump fakes and jumping into defenders, shooters stick their arms and legs out, jump shooters flop upon returning to the floor. All of these are deliberate actions designed to draw a whistle, yet who would ever consider an intentional foul for such? So it can't be the mindset which we are judging, it must be the actual contact.

To me this contact isn't any different from a screener who moves into an opponent illegally or an offensive player driving to the basket in a block/charge situation.

In the video, neither player extends his arms or elbows, causes contact above the shoulders, or grabs and holds his opponent, and I don't view the amount of contact as excessive, so it doesn't rise to the level of an intentional foul in my mind.

What we see is a player trying to be clever and draw an unwarranted penalty against an opponent by causing a collision, but that doesn't make it an intentional foul. Justice is to use the rule instructing officials to ignore common contact during a dead ball and not reward his unscrupulous attempt.

I really don't think that line of reasoning holds water.

Would you call it the same way if a player walked up to another player during a dead ball and shoved them in the chest/back with 2 hands? Players do that during normal play too and it is usually ruled common.

At some point, contact which might be acceptable during a live ball just has no valid purpose during a dead ball...as many people say, it is a non-basketball play. It is merely contact for the sake of contact and that makes it excessive for the situation. The common vs intentional elements of these rules are to allow for residual contact just after the ball is dead that is a result of the preceding play. I don't think they ever were intended to allow for random, deliberate contact with no basketball purpose.