Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?
...

If this is a dead ball play, and the initial contact comes after the ball is dead, what is the purpose of the defense "boxing out" the shooter at that point?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

[La Rikardo]

If a player in control of the ball jumps toward his basket, fouls an opponent, and then dunks the ball, should we call a T for dunking a dead ball?

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If this is a dead ball play, and the initial contact comes after the ball is dead, what is the purpose of the defense "boxing out" the shooter at that point?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

It's not a dead ball play. Have you watched the video?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

It's not a dead ball play. Have you watched the video?

I'll replay this earlier exchange from up thread for your edification.

Originally Posted by ILRef80

The ball was in the air, on a bonus free throw, when the contact occured. It was not a dead ball. That's the main reason for the outrage over the call. The crew made up their own interpretation.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know all that. Did you read what I was responding to?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?

I'm not sure I could go there unless there were prior plays in this game that would lead me to a solid conclusion of the defender's intent on the block out.

Not the same. Assuming it was a dead ball play instead of live ball, it would really matter who close to the dead ball it was. If it is splitting hairs between live/dead, I'm not going to deal with normal contact that happens to be just after the dead ball. Then, the question becomes whether the contact is normal or not. In this case, it can be argued that the contact was not normal but was intentional/excessive (or Flagrant 1). Many might not call it anything other than a common foul but other reasonable officials could.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Please be so kind to show me where I "backpedaled" from anything? I'm the only one in this thread who has actually posted rule book citations.

Sure, here you're calling a T because "intentionally" just means on purpose according to Webster's:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Because Webster's definition applies for me in this case.

And here you've realized you might actually want to use the rules book definition instead and grab onto the lifeline AremRed threw you suggesting you find it to be excessive:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes, thank you, that is the exact reasoning I use for judging such contact a Technical.

However, having reread your proposed play, I think you're probably right on that one. I still think you're overreaching on the OP.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...


However, having reread your proposed play, I think you're probably right on that one. I still think you're overreaching on the OP.

In the OP, if he initiates the contact AFTER the ball is dead, I'm calling a T. There would be no reason for such contact being initiated after the ball goes through the hoop.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Sure, here you're calling a T because "intentionally" just means on purpose according to Webster's:



And here you've realized you might actually want to use the rules book definition instead and grab onto the lifeline AremRed threw you suggesting you find it to be excessive:
....

I didn't grab on to anything. My reasoning as been the same the entire thread. Intentional during live ball does not equal intentional during dead ball. It just so happens I can use Webster or the rule book to justify my stance.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the OP, if he initiates the contact AFTER the ball is dead, I'm calling a T. There would be no reason for such contact being initiated after the ball goes through the hoop.

And I think if he hasn't had a chance to react to the ball becoming dead, you're overreaching. And that, IMHO, is the case in the OP.

As to your reasoning, I'll take your word on it. That's not how it originally appeared to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

And I think if he hasn't had a chance to react to the ball becoming dead, you're overreaching. And that, IMHO, is the case in the OP.

As to your reasoning, I'll take your word on it. That's not how it originally appeared to me.

How would he not have time to react? He can begin his box out when A1 releases the throw. If he is waiting until after the ball is dead you are giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.

What you call "overreaching", I call dead ball officiating and not allowing players to test the line. In my games, that type of dead ball play will only happen once. In fact, in my captains' meetings I tell them there is no reason to knock the free throw shooter off the line, so don't start that mess.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How would he not have time to react? He can begin his box out when A1 releases the throw. If he is waiting until after the ball is dead you are giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.

What you call "overreaching", I call dead ball officiating and not allowing players to test the line. In my games, that type of dead ball play will only happen once. In fact, in my captains' meetings I tell them there is no reason to knock the free throw shooter off the line, so don't start that mess.

At this point, I'd forgotten that the OP was actually a live ball foul.

If a player has enough time to realize the ball is dead and gets him anyways, go ahead and T him. (I'd generally read the riot act first, but you're not wrong to skip that part.) If it happens so close to the ball becoming dead that the player cannot reasonably be expected to stop and the contact is the result of a normal basketball play, i.e. not an intentional or technical in its own right, it should be ignored.

Are you suggesting that any contact after the whistle is a technical?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

...
Are you suggesting that any contact after the whistle is a technical?

No I'm not. But I am suggesting that some contact initiated after the ball is dead would be a technical even if that same contact would be a common foul during a live ball. That was the main thrust of my input to this thread.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No I'm not. But I am suggesting that some contact initiated after the ball is dead would be a technical even if that same contact would be a common foul during a live ball. That was the main thrust of my input to this thread.

Contact which may not be excessive during a live ball may be excessive in a dead ball?

I can agree with that.