Ohio team loses H.S. state title after late hanging-on-the-rim technical foul

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Neither Junior nor I saw the game live because we were officiating in the Ohio Special Olympics State Finals in New Philadelphia, so I had to find the replay of the game on Sports Time Ohio.

The call was correct. Not to mention that everybody in the OhioHSAA office was in attendance not to mention the State Rules Interpreter and I can assure you that if the TF had not been called those officials would have heard about it in the locker room after the game from the State Rules Interpreter.

MTD, Sr.

[rockyroad]

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

[walt]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

I totally agree. My first reaction the first time I watched it was "T". He also fist pounds his chest afterwards. He wasn't challenged on the rise to the rim and there is no one under him. To me this is an easy one. Even his coach didn't defend it.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

This.
"Hey guys, did you see me on that dunk? I kicked the support arm! Wasn't that cool?"
"Uhh, no, it wasn't! Your showboating cost us the game!?!"

[BryanV21]

I've seen hanging for safety reasons. If you think he was hanging like that, with his feet way up and all, for safety then you're looking for it. I don't have to look for anything to see a showboat worthy of a tech.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

Exactly. If this doesn't qualify, they may as well get rid of the rule or re-word it to require a chin up or a roar or something.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

Did he swing them for no reason? Or was his forward momentum such that his legs kept going when he dunked and he couldn't let go lest he fall flat on his back? I think a reasonable case can be made it was that. In any case, I don't see it at all as a clear-cut no brainer.

Edited to add:

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

http://usatodayhss.com/2015/clevelan...oys-basketball

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Did he swing them for no reason? Or was his forward momentum such that his legs kept going when he dunked and he couldn't let go lest he fall flat on his back? I think a reasonable case can be made it was that. In any case, I don't see it at all as a clear-cut no brainer.

Edited to add:

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

See what caused a technical foul that cost Cleveland Catholic a state title | USA Today High School Sports | USA Today High School Sports

Unless he was running like a cheetah, he wouldn't have had enough momentum to cause his legs to go anywhere near that high. He deliberately pulled them up that high and deliberately put himself in that position and the only way he falls on his back is because he did so. He may have had some momentum and a right to hang on but he gave that right up by pulling his legs up to showboat.

You're just looking for a way to avoid blowing the whistle, probably saying you want the kids to decide the game. But, you know what, you just decided the game by not properly calling an obvious infraction. The player decided the game for you and you reversed it by not calling the earned T.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless he was running like a cheetah, he wouldn't have had enough momentum to cause his legs to go anywhere near that high. He deliberately pulled them up that high and deliberately put himself in that position and the only way he falls on his back is because he did so. He may have had some momentum and a right to hang on but he gave that right up by pulling his legs up to showboat.

You're just looking for a way to avoid blowing the whistle, probably saying you want the kids to decide the game. But, you know what, you just decided the game by not properly calling an obvious infraction. The player decided the game for you and you reversed it by not calling the earned T.

How about we just discuss the merits of the case without you telling me what I'm thinking or why I'm thinking it when you have no idea? You think it's obvious? Fine...that's your judgment. I don't think it's anywhere near that obvious and that a reasonable case can be made on the side. Personally, I'm split on it and can see it justifiable either way, a close call, but probably a T. Disagree if you don't see it that way, but spare me the fanboy accusation.

[mutantducky]

the fanboy accusation seems to be a default charge by some here when they get opinions that don't match what they believe in.
I agree with the T. But yeah I also think it was reasonable to pass on it. I would have called it. But I'm sure if you had a room of 10 refs, there would be 3 or 4 who would have passed on it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by scrounge

How about we just discuss the merits of the case without you telling me what I'm thinking or why I'm thinking it when you have no idea? You think it's obvious? Fine...that's your judgment. I don't think it's anywhere near that obvious and that a reasonable case can be made on the side. Personally, I'm split on it and can see it justifiable either way, a close call, but probably a T. Disagree if you don't see it that way, but spare me the fanboy accusation.

I'll send you $100 if you send us a video of you running fast as you can, jumping, dunking, grabbing the rim, and have your feet hit the supports behind he backboard just from momentum.

And if you don't want to be treated like a fanboy, don't use fanboy-level arguments. Whether he would land on his back or not once he hung on the rim is irrelevant if he put himself in that position illegally.

[BillyMac]

10-3-3: A player shall not: Grasp either basket at any time during the game except to prevent injury.

I've never been able to dunk anything larger than a tennis ball, so I don't know what's it like to dunk a basketball, but I do know that, in some cases, it looks scary.

If a dunker hangs in the rim for a second, or so, to set up his landing to prevent an injury to himself, or to a player beneath him, it's a safety issue, so play on.

If a dunker hangs on the rim to show off (Hey everybody, look at me), it's a technical foul for an unsporting act, but it can also be a technical foul because the rules makers wanted to prevent damage to the rim, backboard, or supports.

In between lies judgment.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Did he swing them for no reason? Or was his forward momentum such that his legs kept going when he dunked and he couldn't let go lest he fall flat on his back? I think a reasonable case can be made it was that. In any case, I don't see it at all as a clear-cut no brainer.

Edited to add:

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

See what caused a technical foul that cost Cleveland Catholic a state title | USA Today High School Sports | USA Today High School Sports

If he never hangs on, he doesn't have to worry about it.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Adam

If he never hangs on, he doesn't have to worry about it.

I think if anything this is the closest to the heart of the issues here:

1) Their seems to be a camp of people (not a lot here though) that seem to think dunking in unnecessary and inherently showy so they are already sensitive to the issue. They may not be looking for a T but anything beyond dropping the ball through the hoop irks them some how.

2a) Because of lack of clarity or lack of enforcement in regards to the rule players who dunk often do not go up with thought/regard for the landing. THey habitually dunk and grab the rim to use it gather and reposition themselves before the landing and feel like its part of the prcoess. Now when a kid really hammers one down in a game the extra umph without any regards for jumping/landing technique he needs to "hang" or "swing" to land safely.

2b) Chicken/egg? Now you've got players who are legally allowed to do something but don't do it in a way that allows them to finish the play within the confines of the rules expectations. Did this start happening because it wasn't being called at T in the past or did we stop calling it a T because it happened so frequently.

3) This can be an issue of clients. If you work in a rural public school area you might see a few dunks a year in games if you are lucky. If you work in inner city public or even private schools you might have to work games routinely where 10% of the rim finishes in a game are dunks. This will adjust your threshold.


Back to the OP. This is closer for me then it s for some here. I can support the T but I'm not sure if in real time at the game I'm calling it or not.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

Here's an idea...don't grab the rim and momentum isn't an issue!

There's certainly an element of momentum here, but I think the player gives an extra something in addition to momentum...watch the left leg lag behind then kick up higher than the right.

I'm not saying I would have had the stones to call it given the situation, but I think the official nailed it.