|
|||
Let's Go To The Videotape ...
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Some ...
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) |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
Have done this many times. Last edited by crosscountry55; Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:10pm. Reason: grammar error |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|