What would you do?
 

I want to see what kind of answers I get, before I tell you how I handled this.


Yellow 22 is lying flat on the floor, on his stomach, as White 30 is running past, yellow 22 jumps up and tries to grab white 30 by the foot, trying to trip him, hard to tell if any contact was made, but if any was it was very slight, and not enough to make white 30 go to the floor, but the intent is clear. What would you do? Background. Late season playoff game, #1 vs #2.

Unsportsmanlike technical at minimum, but depending on what I saw, I'd lean toward a flagrant T ("technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct") and just send this kid on his way.

This safely falls under the broad umbrella of unacceptable conduct.

This is an act that is clearly "non-basketball" and severely endangers the safety of the opponent. I agree that it's unacceptable conduct and warrants a flagrant technical foul.

Now, would I have the chutzpah to do this (correctly, as I sit here in abstract judgement) in a game? I'm skeptical. :rolleyes:

Either nothing or an unsporting technical foul. If the offense zips past the fallen defender without an issue and has an easy score, you can leave this attempted trip alone and have a word with the player/coach at the next stoppage.
If the offense doesn't have a clearly advantageous situation, then penalize the defender for his action.

First. White 30 did not have the ball. This was a missed shot by yellow, this play happened in the backcourt at the free throw line.

This is what I did. Gave yellow 22 a technical foul for a non sporting act. Had he actually mad contact and tripped him up, I was going with a flagrant foul.

If a defender runs at a 3 point shooter and ducks his head towards his knees as he goes by, would you assess a technical foul?

Maybe, if I felt it was a deliberate, non basketball act.

Whether this act is flagrant or not shouldn't have anything to do with the player's success or failure to make contact with his opponent.

For example, a punch that misses and a punch that lands are both flagrant.

In my opinion, if you were going to issue a flagrant personal foul had the tripper been successful, then you should have issued a flagrant technical foul for attempt which didn't make contact.

Fair enough. Coach never said a word, kid got up and went directly to bench and was subbed for. He knew what he did. My initial thought was a technical foul, but did consider ejection.

Lol. I've never seen a player accidentally do this.

This might be a "had to be there" situation, because I'm leaving this alone.

Some here make it sound like it was a fighting act (the comparison to a missed punch), while it initially sounded to me like a possible intentional foul if contact was made. Unless, like I said, the grab was a fighting act in which I've got a flagrant tech w/ ejection.

Are you referring to the OP play or the play you suggested?

Has nothing to do with fighting.
I made the point that the observing official needs to make the decision on flagrant or not based upon the act itself, not whether contact is made with the opponent.
If you believe that a deliberate trip is only intentional, then that's fine.

Lastly, fighting involving contact during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

Just to confirm. If a punch is thrown, and doesn't connect, then there's no contact? Right? So, if it was during a live ball, then it would be a technical foul? Right?

The reason I brought up the "fighting act" thing is that grabbing an opponent is not necessarily grounds for an ejection. There have been plenty of times somebody grabs an opponent to prevent them from getting open for a pass, or to stop the clock by fouling at the end of a game. Those instances may be grounds for an intentional foul, but rarely for an ejection. And that's what I'm saying.

I would have had to be there to see the intent behind one player trying to grab the other. Did he do it to stop the player from advancing? Did he do it to try and hurt the other player? Those aren't irrelevant questions.

No, it would be a flagrant personal because you don't have to connect with the other person to be charged with fighting.

NF 4-18

ART. 1
An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

ART. 2
An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

Contact ???
 

I agree with you that one does not have to "connect" to be charged with fighting, but are you sure that it would be a personal flagrant foul (live ball, non-contact) rather than a technical flagrant foul?

4-18 Fighting
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting
includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs
or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

4-19 Foul
A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.
ART. 1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live ...
ART. 4 A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct.
ART. 5 A technical foul is:
b. A noncontact foul by a player.

The difference impacts who gets to shoot the free throws, the fouled player, or any player, even one the bench.

My mistake. Thank you, good sir.

Don't Jump The Gun And Fall On Your Sword ...
 

... How's that for a mixed metaphor?

You're too kind. It's me who may be mistaken. Maybe some esteemed Form members will weigh in on this issue. My opinion is: no contact, live ball, it must be a technical foul, but I've been wrong before, it only happened once, a long time ago, but I was wrong that one time, and only that one time.

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

Billy, your understanding is correct.
Contact during a live ball is a personal foul.
A non-contact foul during a live ball is a technical foul.

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.

I'm certainly going to have something. This play was a done intentional and with intent. I wish I knew how to embed. I just went back and looked at the video. It was off a missed shot, the White team player did have the ball an d the defensive player was on the ground and actually lunged and did make contact with the foot.

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.

In that case, I'd probably go with an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul.

When my partner and I talked about it after, I thought intentional also.

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

Withhold Whistle ???
 

10.4.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when
the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is
being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How
should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing
the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then
sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a
technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be
ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be
sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

It's summer, and I don't have my books handy, but I'm surprised to read "only" above.

I do recall a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

The case play does not say "only," but Nevada interprets it that way.

I do not.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

(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.

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.

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

<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/121476347" width="500" height="282" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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

I have an intentional foul here.

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

Intentional Personal ...
 

Agree 100%.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.NsnE...95&w=168&h=123

Who Shoots The Free Throws ???
 

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.

Different Penalties ...
 

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.

I don't. Obviously who shoots is the biggest difference. I was really just referring to this play. There was no doubt who was going to shoot the T. The team in white was the two time defending champion, and that kid was a three time state tourney MVP. They went on to win the next day, making it 3 in a row, going for 27 ppg in their 9 state tourney wins.

That clears up everything. I'd say there is definitely contact based on the stumbling of the player in white. Intentional personal is the correct call. Thanks for posting the video.

I'm not so sure you should be as hard on yourself. Is it possible that you were trying to clamp down on some building chippy-ness? Looking at the video before this play gold 20 was also acting like dope. (24:53, 27:06, 28:06, 29:02, 31:16) I'm wondering what you thought of the temperature of the game, especially considering that gold was getting wiped...

Gold 20 got a technical foul also. In the third I believe. My partner made a call, and he told him it was "f**king BS". The T was his fifth. First bucket Gold scores kid turns to White bench and claps his hands right at them. First dead ball I asked him if he heard anything we just talked about, and to not do it again. I agree, we were not going to let this game get out of hand.

Not sure that is correct...the action leading up to the retaliation can be considered part of the "fight" by rule, I think. Don't have books with me on vacation, but I believe that wording is in there somewhere, isn't it?

He is being hard on himself because the infraction was either a common personal foul or an intentional personal foul, but not a technical.

The play at 28:06 was almost a big mess. My partner had a block, I had a PC. This is something we pre gamed, and in our corner, anytime we have a double whistle like this the lead has it, (in 2 man mechanics). Could have easily had a blarge here.

Why did you even have a whistle there from Trail??

You should not have had a whistle. Your partner should have called a PC.

Yes the trail should hold his whistle, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the trail having a whistle, but just hold the signal to see what the lead has so we don't have conflicting signals. This play started in the trails primary, there's no way I'm giving it up without knowing for certain my partner has picked it up. He may be officiating post play and not pick it up clean. I'm staying with the drive, especially when it's into the lane.

I don't see anything wrong with the T having a whistle here, in fact probably better from the T. I did think it was a PC.

edit. I meant the T should not have had a whistle here, I got my T's and L's mixed up again.

But your partner did pick it up, and had a whistle. Cadence whistle is what is needed here.

These are conflicting statements, which do you truly believe?

Instigation ...
 

It's there:

4-18 Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs
or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

What? You don't bring your rulebook, casebook, and manual, with you to study on vacations? And you call yourself a basketball official?

In conjunction with the nonsense that was happening earlier (and then confirmed by the T early in the fourth Q) you don't think there was an element of unsporting behavior that needed to be nipped in the bud? FWIW I'm not married to the idea of a T here...

Do you think it was a non-basketball play?

It's a live ball contact foul. By rule it cannot be a technical foul.

Unless you also rule there was an unsporting act in conjunction with the contact. It is always possible to violate more than one rule at a time.

I think that's a stretch. Otherwise, every time someone commits an intentional foul we'd be having this discussion. That two handed push in the back? Well, it all started with an unsportsmanlike decision / act. Doesn't mean a technical foul is the right choice in that situation, either.

Yup, just ask my wife.

Like I wrote, I'm not married to the idea of a technical foul here. Where I get hung up, however, is the non-basketball element of trying to trip someone as he goes by. Part of the hang-up: I could envision a coach arguing that "he was reaching for the ball."

Common, intentional, or flagrant are your choices. Technical foul is not an option for NFHS or NCAA games.

Yep, got it. Thanks for helping me sort it out. I think 2-8-1 and 4-19-14 (the noncontact part makes it clear now) were throwing me off.

How did you like the foul/blocked shot at 27:05?

I like the call. Looked like the kid nearly took the shooter's arm off at the elbow.

Correct.

Wrong.

Certainly, this is standard for all double whistles.

It's in his primary. Do you not trust him to referee his primary, especially a strong-side drive to the basket (going away from you) with secondary defenders right in front of him??

What post play? This is a drive to the bucket right in his lap, I'd wager he's not refereeing post play.

Which is totally fine, but you need to know what you as Trail have responsibility to referee and what your partner has to pick up. In this play Trail has the guy who gets beat off the dribble and BI/goaltending and that's it. As Trail you blew on a secondary defender block/charge situation. That is 100% Lead's call, and in two or three person there should be no way Trail ever has a whistle on that play. If Trail would have a whistle it would have to be for a hit on the drive prior to the block/charge.

I hear old dudes all the time pregame "if the drive starts in your primary you've got it all the way to the basket". This is old thinking and frankly just wrong by how we do things today.

Easy block. Ball first, rest is incidental. Consider which direction the ball went.

He didn't come close to the elbow. He blocked the ball up top and the ball went directly OOB.

So you have not only an incorrect call, but an IC against the team that is losing by 16 points, and puts a 4th foul on their leading scorer. At the college level the official would be getting a phone call by the time he reached his driveway.

This is a blocked shot IMO...look at the hand level of the defender to the ball...it's at the level of the ball....this is a big giveaway that the defender gets to the ball legally. If he gets the arm at the elbow like you're suggesting, his hand would be nowhere close to the ball.

+1. Didn't see the whole play. It was sort of like, "start, develop, fi...boop." Anticipated the call.

I know why this was called a foul. Lets just leave it alone, please.

Well, we old dudes say that here but what we mean by that is actually what you describe above....the T has the primary defender all the way in to the shot. It is NOT referring to secondary defenders. It is to contrast with the old way of thinking where it was 100% the leads for all defenders once it enters the lane.

Actually, I don't think we can tell whether he got the elbow or not. I agree his hand didn't get the elbow but the rest of the defender's arm was right there where it could have hit. I just can't tell for sure from the angle in the video....and the L was in a great position.

I tend to go with a blocked shot, but I can't say that with 100% certainty.