The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 02:04pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Let's Go To The Videotape ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
... a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.
9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

I also have a problem with Nevadaref's interpretation containing the word "only", and would like to see some more discussion regarding same.

Was the attempted trip specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period, or to take away a clear advantageous position by the offense? If so, this case play (9.3.3 SITUATION D) certainly might apply. If not, we might need another citation allowing the official to temporarily ignore the flagrant technical foul.

10.4.1 SITUATION F, as interpreted by Nevadaref, only applies to the bench, but should it also apply to a player on the floor?

Also, what does this, from 9.3.3 SITUATION D (below), mean?

... If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior.

My head is starting to hurt. I still think that we should delay the flagrant technical foul for the attempted trip, but I can't come up with a good case play, or rule interpretation, to defend my opinion.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 05:32pm.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 10:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
I still think that we should delay the flagrant technical foul for the attempted trip, but I can't come up with a good case play, or rule interpretation, to defend my opinion.
Why delay it?

If you're going flagrant on this play -- I know some aren't and some are -- are two free throws, possession and disqualification of the offender somehow a benefit to the defense?!

What coach in his right mind is going to say, "But we had a fast-break opportunity! You took it away from us in return for two lousy free throws, the ball right back in our hands and one of their players DQd?"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, EVERY coach will say that, sadly. I know ... save me that speech.

But, as is generally the case, they'd be acting irrationally/unreasonably.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 10:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODog View Post
Why delay it?

If you're going flagrant on this play -- I know some aren't and some are -- are two free throws, possession and disqualification of the offender somehow a benefit to the defense?!

What coach in his right mind is going to say, "But we had a fast-break opportunity! You took it away from us in return for two lousy free throws, the ball right back in our hands and one of their players DQd?"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, EVERY coach will say that, sadly. I know ... save me that speech.

But, as is generally the case, they'd be acting irrationally/unreasonably.
Actually, I have had a coach say exactly that. Not those exact words and not all that vigorously, but he did question the timing of me calling a T on the opposing coach when his team was on a undefended break away. It was a big game...state tourney quarter final so it could have really mattered (but it did't). I told him I should have delayed the call but I just reacted to the behavior of the coach instead.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 11:02pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODog View Post
Why delay it?

If you're going flagrant on this play -- I know some aren't and some are -- are two free throws, possession and disqualification of the offender somehow a benefit to the defense?!

What coach in his right mind is going to say, "But we had a fast-break opportunity! You took it away from us in return for two lousy free throws, the ball right back in our hands and one of their players DQd?"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, EVERY coach will say that, sadly. I know ... save me that speech.

But, as is generally the case, they'd be acting irrationally/unreasonably.
What coach? I think a large number of coaches will say that...they want the result of the fastbreak...AND whatever happened on the backend.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 11:07pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Some ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ODog View Post
Why delay it?
Because there are two casebook plays that say to delay calling some fouls, or violations. The key word being "some", not necessarily for an attempted trip, but it's still worth discussing here on the Forum.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 12, 2015, 11:54pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Because there are two casebook plays that say to delay calling some fouls, or violations. The key word being "some", not necessarily for an attempted trip, but it's still worth discussing here on the Forum.
I agree. Had there been a scoring chance on this play, I would like to think I would have had a delayed whistle. But in was in the backcourt at the free throw line. I think this was a play that needed a whistle on it immediately.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
There are two case book plays about this. One instructs officials to delay whistling a technical foul on the opposing coach or bench personnel when there is a fastbreak situation. The other instructs officials to ignore an attempt to get a non-contact violation that is off-ball called during the opponents fastbreak situation.

There are no other instances listed in the case book to justify delaying a whistle for a foul or violation. Therefore there is no rules justification to delay a contact foul or a non-contact foul by a player under NFHS rules.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:42am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
I'm having a hard time seeing giving a flagrant technical for an attempted trip. I suppose if the player is swinging his leg to try and leg whip his opponent, that would make sense.

Trying to just grab him with his hands probably isn't going to look like much other than an uncoordinated flail. I could see perhaps a T here, especially if he's been a problem player, but on a whiff it'll probably be a no call and a strong word first time out.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
There are two case book plays about this. One instructs officials to delay whistling a technical foul on the opposing coach or bench personnel when there is a fastbreak situation. The other instructs officials to ignore an attempt to get a non-contact violation that is off-ball called during the opponents fastbreak situation.

There are no other instances listed in the case book to justify delaying a whistle for a foul or violation. Therefore there is no rules justification to delay a contact foul or a non-contact foul by a player under NFHS rules.
The case book is not an exhaustive list nor is it establishing rules. It is merely giving examples of plays and how they should be called. The play in question is between the two cases you reference and could conceivably be ruled either way based on those two cases.

One says to ignore violations, in general, but penalize as unsportsmanlike if needed. The other says to delay the call for a technical foul on a coach. It doesn't say to do so only for a coach nor only for a technical foul. It is an example.

It would not be unreasonable to interpret the cited cases as supporting the delay of the call for an intentional or flagrant foul.

It may or may not be wise to delay addressing such an intense type of foul, but the cited cases don't exactly say one way or the other.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:58pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If a coach or player is being a real pain I will sometimes delay a tech if the other team has the ball until they score or miss.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
If a coach or player is being a real pain I will sometimes delay a tech if the other team has the ball until they score or miss.
Yup. Or just delay until you get a minute to blow the ball dead and talk to the coach/player, maybe warn the coach (if you and/or your commissioner are in to that tool), etc.

Have done this many times.

Last edited by crosscountry55; Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:10pm. Reason: grammar error
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Your response is inaccurate.
If A1 attempts to strike B1 with his fist or elbow during a live ball, but B1 is able to duck or dodge the intended blow, A1 still committed a foul and the official has the authority to penalize it.
(unnecessary personal shot deleted) And you are correct, fighting doesn't need contact and if the player who allegedly was allegedly tripped retaliated and took a swing at the defender on the ground, they both would be charged with fighting as his act caused the opponent to retaliate, regardless if he grabbed his foot or not. Again, that's not the what happened. OP wasn't even sure if there was contact. Without contact, I still have nothing regardless of so called intent. I'd talk to coach and let him handle it.

Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Last edited by Adam; Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 09:16am. Reason: Moderator moderating
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.
This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:04am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mregor View Post
This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't.
Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mregor View Post
(quoted personal attack deleted) And you are correct, fighting doesn't need contact and if the player who allegedly was allegedly tripped retaliated and took a swing at the defender on the ground, they both would be charged with fighting as his act caused the opponent to retaliate, regardless if he grabbed his foot or not. Again, that's not the what happened. OP wasn't even sure if there was contact. Without contact, I still have nothing regardless of so called intent. I'd talk to coach and let him handle it.

Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.
(reference to personal shot deleted)

Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact wasn't ruled flagrant on its own (perhaps the official only charged a normal personal foul or an intentional personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

Last edited by Nevadaref; Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:59pm. Reason: moderator moderating
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1