Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.

bob jenkins

youngump wrote
if the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

2-3

Blindolbat

Nevadaref wrote
The only thing which is perplexing is your convoluted and confusing post, which also contains several factual errors of NFHS rules.

Here are the clear facts:
The play involves an airborne shooter. Rule 6-7-9 tells us that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, despite a whistle for a goaltending violation.
Therefore, the ball remains live following the goaltending. It only becomes dead when airborne shooter A1 commits a charging foul prior to returning to the floor as this is a player control foul per 4-19-6 and 6-7-4 states that a PC makes the ball dead.

Now we simply penalize the actions in order of occurrence. Award points for the goaltending, and then award Team B a throw-in with the privilege of running the endline due to the awarded goal.

The principle which controls this situation is that the ball does not become dead until the airborne shooter either returns to the floor or commits a PC foul.

Ok. This is the most clear explanation I've heard or read regarding this. I appreciate everyone chiming in. A very rare situation I would have missed until now

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act? Dead is dead? Like a door nail? Right?

Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

crosscountry55

BillyMac wrote
Rule 6 - Section 7
Dead Ball
Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below).
Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when:
d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.

My suggestion to the rules committee for clearing this all up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
Since the goaltend made the ball dead, wouldn't the player control foul have to be intentional or flagrant to not ignore, and thus technical?

I agree the goal tending causes the ball to become dead (exception 4 applies to swinging the elbows and to leaving the court, not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want).

Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

crosscountry55

bob jenkins wrote
Still a foul on or by an airborne shooter while the ball is dead is still a personal foul (4-19-1) and a PC foul (4-19-6).

So, enforce the violation and the foul.

Good point. Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket (still no RA in NFHS). But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

So I guess my editorial suggestion above may not be necessary after all.

Always listen to Bob.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BillyMac

crosscountry55 wrote
Normally we think of such a foul as occurring after an apparently successful try, such as on a tomahawk dunk with an LGP defender under the basket ... But I suppose the ball could just as well have become dead from the violation rather than the successful try.

crosscountry55: Great example. Thanks.

Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
... not to other violations, although the rule does include the words "such as" so you could extend it if you want ...

I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

BillyMac

youngump wrote
If the ball is not dead after the first goal tend, what happens if somebody else also goal tends it or commits basket interference?

Like opponents, one from each team?

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
I probably agree with bob jenkins in theory (intent, purpose), but I'm unable to find the language "such as" in any applicable rule. Please cite.

Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

BillyMac

crosscountry55 wrote
Rule 6 - Section 7 Dead Ball Art. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below). Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap for field goal ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3, 9-11, 9-12 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.

bob jenkins wrote
Sorry -- I misremembered "as" in 6-7-Excp d as "such as" when I was typing. Should have brought my books from the library to the computer.

Although I haven't given it much of a deep dive study, I kind of like crosscountry55's idea.

Unfortunately, it's still just an idea and not yet applicable to the kerfuffle ruling in the current casebook play.

Thus, I stand by my questions regarding this casebook ruling:

BillyMac wrote
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul? Why does one act make the ball "deader" than the other act?

While there are rule exceptions to a ball not becoming dead right away, thus delaying death, I'm not aware of any rule exception that resurrects a doornail dead ball and making it to become alive again.

Also need a rule exception for this (I don't believe that there's currently an exception in the rulebook for this):

BillyMac wrote
Successful dunk causes the ball to become instantly dead, dead as a doornail, no pulse, but we still penalize the player control foul even though it may not be intentional nor flagrant.

BillyMac

Low hanging fruit. Couldn't resist.

Black Friday is coming up. Amazon is gearing up to deliver.

SNIPERBBB

As a possible rule change, one could argue that a PC foul on an airborne shooter occured the moment the shooter left the ground (all the elements of a PC foul sans the resulting contact have already occurred unless the would be offended player or another defender bails the shooter out by committing a foul on the shooter first). So retroactively the PC occurs first negating the goaltend.

bob jenkins

BillyMac wrote
What's the rule citation for the "zombie" ball between the goaltend and the player control foul?

None. And it's not needed. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. (I'm shocked! Shocked! to find out that this is true!)

The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
The goaltending made the ball dead. You can still have a PC foul after the ball is dead. Enforce both, in the order they happened. That's the point of the case play.

Yes but (an official's famous, or infamous, last words) aren't we supposed to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it's intentional or flagrant?

If the caseplay is the only citation (explanation, rationale) for this ruling, I can live with that, but would prefer to also have a rule language citation as well.

BillyMac

We have a winner.

BillyMac wrote
7.5.7 SITUATION A: B1 goaltends on airborne shooter A1’s try. A1 fouls B1 in returning to the floor. RULING: Since no free throws result from the player-control foul, B’s throw-in is from anywhere along the end line because of the awarded goal for B1’s goaltending violation. (9-12 Penalty 1)

4-19-1-Note: Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Why did it take so long for us to come up with this citation?

Also takes care of crosscountry55's dunk and charge situation.

Now we can all sleep peacefully tonight with visions of turkey legs and pumpkin pies in our heads knowing that all in the basketball officiating universe is copacetic.

Raymond

I already knew it and was wondering what the big deal was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
I already knew it ...

I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?

Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Are we on Candid Camera? Where's the camera? Is it the camera in our laptops?

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
I don't doubt that for a single second, but why keep it a secret?

Wait? Is this Candid Camera? C'mon Raymond. Where's the camera?

Because I'm doing other things during the day and not going to go find the exact citation in the rule book. It's pretty common knowledge (or should be) amongst veteran officials that after the ball is dead fouls can still be committed by or against an airborne shooter.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
Because I'm doing other things during the day ...

You were noticeably absent from this thread (only one early post). This must be the busy time of the year for you at work. Hopefully you have tomorrow off from work. Happy Thanksgiving.

« Previous Page Next Page »