Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)
 

Can someone please post the video of the following play as described on ESPN.com:


Trice answered with a 3-pointer with 1:20 remaining before Nunn scored on a drive to make it 55-52. But when Trice was hit by Tate after making the front end of a one-and-one, Michigan State got three more foul shots with 33 seconds left and made just one of them.

"The ball went through the hoop, and the ball became dead," referee Terry Wymer said. "No. 1 (Tate) backed into him in an unnecessary manner and made contact with him at that point. That's why we called a dead-ball contact technical foul."

As an Illinois fan, I was watching the game. IN NO WAY was that a dead ball technical. The Illinois defender on the lane that was responsible for the shooter put his butt into the shooter after the first shot of the 1 and 1. It was not severe contact, or unnecessary IMO. The shooter took it to the jewels and reacted as such. I really don't see this being called during normal play EVER. At most, it should have been a common foul as it did not happen AFTER the ball went through. As soon as the FT was released, the shooter was boxed out. Just my opinion, but maybe I was watching with my heart more than my eyes. ;-)

Apart from all that ;) -- it wasn't a T because the contact was made while the ball was live.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video but I'm at work right now.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12292877

APG embed

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/olwf_mRbSrU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let's just say the video shows otherwise.

Protect the family jewels!
 

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

Contact was before the ball went through the basket.

So, which official came in with the T? I don't see any signal initially on the video. Did they go to the monitor before assessing the T?

Sure -- and if this happens -- get the foul. No need for it to be a violation, imo.

And, while they did get the call wrong, it's pretty hard to figure it out during play -- by the time you recognize it was a ful and blow the whistle, the ball was through.

They went to reply to review the play

Hard to figure out? I completely disagree. The slot was watching the flight of the ball, pure and simple. The shooter and the guys across the lane are his responsibility. Easy common foul call if you're looking where you're supposed to. Instead, white coach was probably livid, they went to the monitor, maybe even realized all they had was CF (which you cannot assess after review and a no-call on court) but decided to call CDBT to save face because the shooter got hit in the shamrocks.

Just because a hard box out of the shooter usually only happens in GJV basketball doesn't mean that's the only place it happens.

Someone probably got a phone call over this one.

Sorry - -it's easy to get the foul -- it's hard to determine during action whether it happened before (live ball) or after (dead ball) the ball went through the basket.

And, honestly, I'd favor a mechanics change where once the ball is released (and, heck, maybe even before) -- T is responsible for violations by and fouls on the shooter. C needs to quickly shift to watch the rebounding action on his side.

That is a foul IMO. Usually you do not see that much contact.

I was told about this yesterday and it was assumed that the kid embellished. I think he got hit in the sensitive area and reacted. I would have had no problem with a foul here.

Peace

Definitely a foul. Problem is, the crew ruled that the contact came after the ball was dead, and thus charged a CDBTF. Should've been a personal foul.

And once missed, it's missed forever even with the monitor review since it was nothing more than a common foul.

I agree with the post above -- they felt like they had to get something and it certainly wasn't a F1. So they r-e-a-c-h-e-d and said it was a dead ball foul, which allowed them to call a technical. Except the ball wasn't dead when the contact occurred.

NFHS Rules ? We Don't Need No Stinkin' NFHS Rules! ...
 

Here's the second part of the "IAABO Rule":

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

Faker ...
 

I'm seeing more players on the lane faking to try to get opponents to enter early. So far, just fakes, no opponents entering early due to the fake.

The fake (on the marked lane space) has to cause the opponent to enter early, or no violation? Right?

Shooter fakes? Automatic violation? Right?

9-1-3b: "...nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate."
Seems the emphasis is on "fake" over against "to cause".
Had this only once this season. Surprised me enough that I counted the faker's teammate's FT before giving the throw-in to the fakee's team. I was wrong. Hadn't seen it ever under the previous rules for lane entry.

I have not seen anything much more physical than I saw during any other rebounding action. And most defenders only go up to the shooter, I have not seen much pushing or bumping. Yes it has come close to happening, but I hope there is no change in the rule. We just should call the foul.

And I think what Bob said about a mechanics change is a good idea as the C is often trying to watch the flight of the ball.

Peace

FT Shooter Displacement 1

FT Shooter Displacement 2

Embedded for better viewing.
 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/70UZIhwL-00" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0NJ4SpR6_wU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

I hate to say it, but notice how those clips are both girls games. I don't know why boxing out the shooter is such a coaching fascination in the girls game, but 90% of those fouls come from that arena.

Also, both clips are common fouls. Good job by both C's. The second clip it looked like he had a very patient whistle; he probably wasn't going to call it if the FT was good. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think that's what happened there.

Actually, it's easy to KNOW that this is a live ball foul. Even if you don't see this play happen, you know that the ball doesn't go thru the net and THEN a FT shooter is blocked out. It simply never happens like that.

The fact that they didn't call the foul when it happened, went to the monitor and reviewed it, and STILL got it wrong boggles my mind. Almost NONE of the Dead ball Contact Rechnical Foul criteria were met on this play.

If I'm the supervisor, seven guys are getting a phone call from me (3 officials, each head coach, each AD, & my boss) and probably two officials are losing an assignment......

I just don't understand how the crew messed this one up.

Could a foul have been called? Sure. The FT shooter was displaced. But nothing was called. They went to the monitor. It was clear the ball was still live. The contact wasn't flagrant. There was nothing they could do. For Wymer to come up with the interpretation is really, really bad. We should expect more from someone in his position. They didn't just kick a call. They misinterpreted the whole situation, WITH the benefit of review. They can't miss that.

I agree. And I was told that officials have brain farts. So I guess that is acceptable in some people's eyes. But this was a very basic rule as well.

Peace

I'll second that.

Let's put this play in an NFHS game and say that the contact did occur after the ball passed through the basket.
Now we have a rule which tells us to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.
What do you guys think is the right standard for making that determination?
Do you use Terry Wymer's "in an unnecessary manner" to judge the contact or would you consider if the contact happened during a live ball and ask yourself if you would call an intentional or flagrant personal foul? I think that the mindset with which we examine such things can render different conclusions.

I would lean towards the later ... would it have been intentional during a live ball. But I would give very little benefit of the doubt to the fouler (similar to how I would handle it in a game where players had already had some rough/hard fouls -- more likely to rule intentional on something borderline).

The foul in the OP, in my opinion, should be ignored if it occured after the ball was dead as I think the contact was minimal and not dirty in any way -- just happened to hit a sensitive area.

I don't judge the contact in the play as excessive or intentional, thus I'd have nothing (might warn the player not to displace the shooter). There's no reason to create a bigger problem by calling a foul here. JMO.

The contact was intentional, it wasn't an accident. What reason would there be for such contact after the ball is dead?

The ball was not dead when contact occurred. It hadn't even entered the cylinder yet. There is a lot of contact that happens while the ball is live that is intentional. Should that be called the same way? #1 wasn't seeking his private section, he wasn't even looking. He made a normal basketball box out while the play was live. The only thing that should have been done about it is "sorry coach I missed the contact". But instead, they about send Illinois straight to the NIT with some made up stuff about "dead ball technical". Never saw a dead ball technical while the ball is LIVE!

What's hilarious to me is that after they tried justifying that within the rules, the player misses 2 out of 3, misses a short jumper in the lane, and then grabs Illinois' number 21 from behind to commit a foul and nothing other than a common foul is called. If they're so dead set on the rules, then call an intentional there as well!

But I am just an Illinois fan griping (within the rules). If they lost the game that way, it would have ruined my week.

So are you saying that had the ball been dead, you would have an intentional foul under NFHS rules?

My initial opinion of the OP, was that the contact was at the level of a common foul for illegal contact while attempting to box out. Hypothetically speaking, had the ball just gone through the basked and become dead, then that contact would be ignored. To your question, one reason why there would be such contact is that it sometimes takes a second for players to react to the fact that the play is over.

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.

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

Dead ball contact shall be ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant. That contact was not UNINTENTIONAL. So if a player did that after the ball is dead, I have no problem T'ing them up.

Ah..mea culpa.

If the ball had been in flight at the time of this contact would you call an intentional personal foul?

I'm curious what makes you have the opinion that this contact is "intentional" in the basketball definition sense, not the Webster's English dictionary definition sense.

All this provokes the question whether the contact landing in a sensitive area can change the call. Had the contact in the video occurred a few inches to one side or the other the effects would have barely been noticed if at all.

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

I'm surprised to hear that response from you.

So are you calling an intentional personal foul if this action takes place during a live ball?

B1 is whistled for a handcheck. A1 takes 2 more dribbles after the whistle and turns to pass the ball to the official. B1 knows the play is dead but attempts to knock the pass down and instead whacks A1 across the wrists.

Is that a tech?

Not for dead ball contact. I see this action as constituting a normal foul if the ball had been live, and thus it is ignored BY RULE when it occurs during a dead ball.

Now will you please answer the question that I've asked you twice?

No I'm not.

And in the play I submitted to you, I'm calling a T.

And I have no problem explaining it to a coach or supervisor. I had this debate with Jurassic when I first joined the board.

I err on the side of vigorously discouraging any unnecessary crap between players.

Third one of the season yesterday. GV. Defensive player in upper block enters lane, proceeds backwards to displace FT shooter.
Shooter, "holding her pose" as the FT was in flight, buckled over from the "butt to the gut" illegal contact (actually lower than the shooter's gut, but then it wouldn't rhyme). Spurious charge of, "But she was boxing her out!" by defensive coach was laughable. Didn't need to check the monitor for this one. Wasn't a dead-ball technical.

So you are issuing technical fouls because you don't like someone's actions. You are on dangerous ground. I may not care for what a player or coach does, but my duty is to enforce the rules as written, and not impose my personal interpretation of justice. Unfortunately, that means that I have to let a few things go for which I might wish to issue a technical foul, but can't justify under dead-ball contact or unsporting behavior (non-contact).
The rules tell us that not all contact during a dead ball should be penalized with a technical foul. Quite clearly officials are to only penalize contact that is deemed intentional or flagrant, so I'm going to stick with that.
Sadly, you are having trouble answering the question I posed because you are reluctant to reconsider your long-held belief and come to terms with the fact that you've been acting incorrectly.

Uh isn't that what we are supposed to do, use our judgement?

Sadly, I already answered your question at 9:51pm Eastern Time last night...trying more reading, and less posturing and lecturing. If you are going to command me to answer a question then take the time to read my answer which was right after your post from 9:29pm Eastern Time last night.

I'm fine with the ground I'm on. And yes, I call Techs on dead balls when players do something I deem detrimental to the good order and discipline of the game. You don't have to like it. Now, if you are ever my supervisor, I will adjust my thinking for those games which you assign me. Until then you'll just have to live with the travesty my way of thinking is rendering to the game. :rolleyes:

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.

The rule for HS reads:

10-3 ART. 7
A player shall not:

Intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.


Nowhere does that rule say that "Intentionally" is defined as the same contact that constitutes an Intentional foul.

But to play your "BNR is ignoring the rule" game, one definition of an Intentional foul is:

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

Once the ball is dead, the player contacted is obviously not involved in any play of any kind, so that contact can be deemed Intentional in my book.

Since there is no such thing as an Intentional Foul in NCAA basketball, I'm not concerned with whether or not an Intentional Foul would be called if the ball were live.

For NCAA-Men's, the rule reads:

10-3 Art. 1d.

Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.

Nowhere in that rule does is say dead ball contact has to meet the same criteria as a Flagrant 1 personal foul.

The Flagrant 1 personal foul rule reads:

4-15 Art. 2c

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow which is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q-o2L9c0Tpk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

Maybe in your games it is normal for people to throw their a$$ into someone nutz or slap them across the wrist when a play is dead, but not in my games.

I'm desperately backpedaling? Really? I've quite clearly stated my stance and the fact that I would have no problem explaining such a T to a coach or a supervisor.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.