Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, we're supposed to apply the rules. BNR is ignoring the rules book definition of "intentional" and instead using it's common definition in order to justify Ts that aren't justified under the rules.

You cannot give a T because you don't like someone or their actions. They must actually commit an act that is punishable, by rule, with a technical foul.

BNR is exercising his judgement that this contact well after the whistle is excessive, which per my reading of 4-19-3 he is well within his rights to do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

BNR is exercising his judgement that this contact well after the whistle is excessive, which per my reading of 4-19-3 he is well within his rights to do.

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

I do not call a lot of T's. I may want back a couple T's I've called on coaches, but I have never regretted any T I've ever called on a player. An overwhelming majority of the T's I have called on players involve taunting or dead-ball contact between players. I just don't tolerate foolishness between players that could lead to retaliation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

I do not call a lot of T's. I may want back a couple T's I've called on coaches, but I have never regretted any T I've ever called on a player. An overwhelming majority of the T's I have called on players involve taunting or dead-ball contact between players. I just don't tolerate foolishness between players that could lead to retaliation.

I agree with your points on this.

A player intentionally contacts an opponent during a dead ball and it is not just accidental bumping that neither meant to have occur, it can be a T. There is no reason to smack an opponent anywhere well after the ball is dead.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with your points on this.

A player intentionally contacts an opponent during a dead ball and it is not just accidental bumping that neither meant to have occur, it can be a T. There is no reason to smack an opponent anywhere well after the ball is dead.

I'd humbly suggest that the key is the phrase "well after." In other words, was the contact a continuation of legitimate play that happened to occur after the ball became dead. Or was it a doofus committing an unsportsmanlike act to intimidate an opponent.

On the FT example, was it a "foul" by a player being aggressive and trying to make a basketball play of boxing out (nothing because not intentional within the spirit of the rule, even though he was trying to make contact to box out), or a thug trying to smack the shooter to make him think about being smacked while he shoots his next free throw (an unsporting act that is penalized as intentional dead-ball contact)?

I suspect that some, though not all, of the disagreement here is how the particular act is being pictured, and whether a particular poster is visualizing the cotnact as a natural (but late) part of the game or as a message being delivered by a thug.

[APG]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I'd humbly suggest that the key is the phrase "well after." In other words, was the contact a continuation of legitimate play that happened to occur after the ball became dead. Or was it a doofus committing an unsportsmanlike act to intimidate an opponent.

I agree with this stance...the standard of ignoring dead ball contact unless it would be an intentional or flagrant personal foul deals with contact that can/does during the immediate action after the ball is dead.

I don't think you can literally apply that standard for situations that are well after the play....and honestly, I don't know many officials that would. What is considered excessive has to be in the context of the situation in the game. Slapping down and hitting a player on the wrist while he's holding the ball...personal foul during a live ball. If he does the same thing five seconds after the ball is dead due to a whistle? That's excessive in the context of the game at that moment and deserves a T.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by APG

I agree with this stance...the standard of ignoring dead ball contact unless it would be an intentional or flagrant personal foul deals with contact that can/does during the immediate action after the ball is dead.

I don't think you can literally apply that standard for situations that are well after the play....and honestly, I don't know many officials that would. What is considered excessive has to be in the context of the situation in the game. Slapping down and hitting a player on the wrist while he's holding the ball...personal foul during a live ball. If he does the same thing five seconds after the ball is dead due to a whistle? That's excessive in the context of the game and deserves a T.

Agree 100% ... but for the sake of further discussion ...

If you give a T for slapping the ball out of an opponents hands 5 seconds after the whistle, could you not have a double Technical for since the other player clearly failed to "immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle blows".

[APG]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

If you give a T for slapping the ball out of an opponents hands 5 seconds after the whistle, could you not have a double Technical for since the other player clearly failed to "immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle blows".

Are you asking realistically speaking? Immediate is relative. Is the official asking for the ball? If so, then there could be justification for giving a T. But in a situation like above...where officials are switching and it may not be clear if the official is ready for the ball or who the closet official will be? No, I don't think you would be justified.

The rule is there to penalize situations when an official asks for the ball and the player doesn't do so...usually be just placing the ball on the ground or throwing it in a direction other than to the official...usually in protest to a call.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with your points on this.

A player intentionally contacts an opponent during a dead ball and it is not just accidental bumping that neither meant to have occur, it can be a T. There is no reason to smack an opponent anywhere well after the ball is dead.

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.

[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 AremRed

BNR is exercising his judgement that this contact well after the whistle is excessive, which per my reading of 4-19-3 he is well within his rights to do.

No, he's not. He's desperately trying to backpedal from his own admission that the book he's using is Websters rather than the rules book. He's freely put forward an normal basketball play which happens after the whistle as his poster child for his style of dead-ball contact technical which seems quite clearly what the committee is trying to prevent with their formulation.

I think it's quite clear that BNR is outside the spirit, if perhaps not the strict words, of the rule.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No, he's not. He's desperately trying to backpedal from his own admission that the book he's using is Websters rather than the rules book. He's freely put forward an normal basketball play which happens after the whistle as his poster child for his style of dead-ball contact technical which seems quite clearly what the committee is trying to prevent with their formulation.

I think it's quite clear that BNR is outside the spirit, if perhaps not the strict words, of the rule.

Go and read his situation again. The contact is well after the whistle and it sounds like if the player had been able to block the shot I would have had a tech anyway for unsporting behaviour! I think you are not imagining this correctly or thinking this is a bang-bang play from whistle to contact. The way I read it, this contact is well after the whistle and thus excessive and unnecessary.