What would you do? - Page 4

#46 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 06:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mregor

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.

New refs please don't do what Mregor and I did. I too ejected a kid (A1) a couple years ago for fighting for taking a swipe at another kid's (B1) hand cuz A1 was being held. I ejected A1 and gave B1 a tech for "instigating" a fight and it was a bitch to explain to the coaches. Still probably the worst decision of my basketball career.

OKREF · #47 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 08:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

If you will tell me how to embed I will try. Or I can send you the link and you can get it.

OKREF · #48 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 08:24am

Play is it the 31:50 mark 1:35 left in the second quarter

Rich · #49 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 08:54am

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

OKREF · #50 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 08:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Yea, I remember sitting in the locker room at half and talking about that, wished I would have had an intentional instead.

Adam · #51 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yea, I remember sitting in the locker room at half and talking about that, wished I would have had an intentional instead.

A cheap lesson to learn.

OKREF · #52 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

A cheap lesson to learn.

Other than it counting as one of his two, really the only difference is where the ball is inbounded. I know the Technical is more punitive.

Adam · #53 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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 (perhaps the official only charged a personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

Interesting.
B1 swipes at A1's foot and misses (official rules this an unsporting technical foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

B1 swipes at A1's foot and makes contact (intentional foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

We only get to toss them both if B1 misses.

Welpe · #54 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Agreed.

Thanks for posting the video, that cleans things up quite a bit.

BryanV21 · #55 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:36am

I have an intentional foul here.

stripes · #56 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 11:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

+1. Seeing the video, it is an easy play.

BillyMac · #57 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 04:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video. I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Agree 100%.

BillyMac · #58 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 04:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF

... the only difference is where the ball is inbounded.

The only difference? Are you sure?

Intentional Personal: Only fouled player (unless injured, or otherwise not eligible to play) allowed to shoot the two free throws. Ball inbounded at spot closest to where foul occurred.

Technical: Any player, including a substitute coming off the bench, can shoot the two free throws, even two different players. Ball inbounded at division line, opposite table.

Nevadaref · #59 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 05:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The only difference? Are you sure?

Intentional Personal: Only fouled player (unless injured, or otherwise not eligible to play) allowed to shoot the two free throws. Ball inbounded at spot closest to where foul occurred.

Technical: Any player, including a substitute coming off the bench, can shoot the two free throws, even two different players. Ball inbounded at division line, opposite table.

Billy,
I believe that he is referring to how the events unfolded in this specific case. For in this case the player who was fouled actually attempted the awarded technical foul FTs, therefore, the only difference was in fact where the ball was inbounded subsequently.

BillyMac · #60 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 14, 2015, 05:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... the player who was fouled actually attempted the awarded technical foul FTs, therefore, the only difference was in fact where the ball was inbounded subsequently.

If that's the case, I'm alright with that, but I'm still leaving my post up to remind rookie officials that there are subtle differences between penalties for intentional personal fouls, and technical fouls. Hopefully, OKREF won't mind.