BASKETBALL

TO ‘T’ OR NOT TO ‘T’

Unsporting Behavior Often in the Eye of the Beholder

By Scott Tittrington

It’s often said great basketball officiating requires striking the proper balance between art and science.

That’s due, in part, to the fact that the rulebooks governing NFHS, NCAAM and NCAAW in some instances provide a perfect blueprint for how an official should operate, and just a few pages one way or the other leave enough room for individual interpretation through which you can drive a semi-truck.

Fouls against a ballhandler? It doesn’t get any more cut and dried. Each rule code specifically spells it out: If a defender does X, Y or Z with the hands or arms and makes contact, it’s a foul. The science has been well established. Officials know what constitutes a foul. Coaches generally know what constitutes a foul. Players also generally know what constitutes a foul. (Fans do not know, but that’s an entirely different story.)

However, a perfect counterpoint to this science is the art of the technical foul, especially in the domain of “unsporting acts,” “unsporting behavior” or “misconduct.” What exactly does that mean? The rulebooks attempt to provide some additional clarity, using phrases such as “disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official,” “gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment,” “using profane or inappropriate language,” “baiting or taunting an opponent” and more.

The challenge is these phrases often lead to individual

When having a conversation with a player, Kevin O’Neill, Havertown, Pa., must be able to discern when the dialogue crosses a line into unsporting behavior that may need to be punished with a technical foul.

interpretations. What one official may deem as nothing more than a high school kid being a smart mouth, another official may decide crosses a line and must be punished with a technical foul. Who is right? Who is wrong? Does it depend on the situation and the setting? The level of play (a high school freshman game vs. a men’s college game)? Is an assigner/supervisor/coordinator going to have the official’s back, whichever way he or she rules? So much for science … we now have a whole lotta art going on, and while you may enjoy Picasso, I may prefer Van Gogh.

My motivation for exploring this topic, in addition to hopefully educating officials and bringing about an important rules-based and philosophical discussion about unsporting behavior and technical fouls, is admittedly selfish: During my just-completed 2020-21 high school basketball season, I issued 16 technical fouls in 80 games from freshman to high school varsity. It became a bit of a running joke around the office: “How many people did you whack last night?” Chances are I handed out more technical fouls than any other official in southeastern Wisconsin.

Of that 16, one was an administrative technical for a wrong uniform number in the scorebook. So that doesn’t count in the “unsporting behavior” realm. The remaining 15 included five against coaches and 10 against players. None were for fighting, a no-brainer category of its own. So that means I had 15 opportunities to decide whether the behavior was worthy of a technical foul based on the rules as written, and voted in the affirmative. There were undoubtedly additional situations where I decided some manner of squirrely behavior did not cross the line.

Now, keep in mind, I am not bothered by my “T” number. I’ve heard it often said officials are much more prone to beat themselves up for the times they did not give a “T” and should have instead of the other way around, and I would say I fall into that camp. As I sit here writing this, I am replaying situations from this past season where I did not penalize behavior when I maybe should have, not the other way around.

That said, I certainly understand others’ mileage may vary, as evidenced by the number of officials with whom I worked this season who confessed they could count on one hand the number of technical fouls they had issued during their 20-plus-year careers. That tells me one of three things: said officials define unsporting behavior differently than I do, I attract the bad apples like moths to a flame, or there are many officials out there who quite simply are not taking care of business because they don’t want others to view them as “T” happy.

All that said, I am going to offer up five different situations I encountered this season and will let you know how I ruled and the reasoning behind my decision. As you read each situation, try to envision yourself as the official and whether you would deem the described behavior as “unsporting behavior” worthy of a technical foul.

Play 1: A1 is holding the ball on the perimeter. As soon as A1 begins to dribble, B1 places two hands on the ballhandler. As the trail official, I rule a hand check on B1. While reporting the foul to the scorer’s table, team B’s head coach expresses his displeasure with the call, at which point I tell the coach, “Two hands on a ballhandler is an automatic foul.” The coach turns his back, stomps away and yells loud enough for everyone in the sparsely populated gym to hear, “That’s a terrible call!” Ruling 1: Technical foul. The coach asked why he was not warned, believing his behavior did not warrant a “T” because he did not “make it personal.” I believe unsporting behavior is not just a matter of what is said, but how it is said. Screaming at full volume checks a lot of boxes related to an unsporting foul under NFHS rules.

Play 2: A1 is cutting through the lane on an inbounds play from the endline. Feeling as though an opposing player is getting too handsy with her, she says loud

BY THE NUMBERS

.3

The magic number for whether or not a player can legally catch a throw-in or missed free throw and shoot at the end of a half, period or quarter when the game clock displays tenths of seconds. If 0.3 or less remains on the clock, a player may only tap and score without ever gaining control of the ball (NFHS 5-2-5; NCAAM/W 5-1.19).

DID YOU KNOW?

Are you someone who likes to support the offcourt ventures of your fellow officials? If so, you may want to check out Brothers Chops, Seafood and Spirits the next time you visit the Norfolk, Va., area. NBA official Tony Brothers, a 27-year veteran, and two business partners opened the fine-dining establishment featuring live jazz in January.

THEY SAID IT

“One thing these guys all had that really made them successful was a little edge. … The game’s not going to run them. So if you’re running the league, you want to make sure you put someone out there you can trust, someone who will take care of all the junk.”

— Ed Rush, former — Ed Rush, former

NBA supervisor of NBA supervisor of officials, on the strong officials, on the strong

Philadelphia Philadelphia connection connection in the NBA in the NBA officiating officiating ranks ranks

SOURCE: INQUIRER. COM

TEST YOURSELF

In each of the following, decide which answer or answers are correct for NFHS, NCAA men’s and NCAA women’s rules, which might vary. Solutions: p. 81.

1. All of the following are true of the replacement of a disqualified player, except which? a. The head coach shall replace a disqualified player within 20 seconds. b. The head coach shall replace a disqualified player within 15 seconds. c. A warning horn shall be sounded with 15 seconds remaining before the disqualified player shall be replaced. d. A second horn shall be sounded if the substitute for the disqualified player has not reported to the scorer.

2. What is the last point at which a free-throw violation can be recognized in order for it to be penalized? a. Before the free throw ends. b. Before the game clock properly starts. c. During the first dead ball after the game clock properly starts. d. Before the second live ball.

3. Which of the following results in a double foul? a. Two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time. b. Two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time. c. Two opponents commit flagrant fouls against each other at approximately the same time. d. All of the above are double fouls.

4. When a head coach has been ejected, the assistant coach who replaces the head coach shall inherit which technical fouls that were charged to the head coach? a. Direct technical fouls charged to the head coach. b. Indirect technical fouls charged to the head coach. c. Class A technical fouls charged to the head coach. d. Class B technical fouls charged to the head coach. e. No technical fouls charged to the head coach shall be inherited by the assistant coach. enough for everyone to hear, “Get your hands off me.” Moments later, after the ball has been inbounded, A1 ends up in front of me, the center official, and says loud enough for me and her team bench behind me to hear, “She better not (expletive) do that again,” at which point I tell her that any additional such language will not be tolerated. A team A assistant coach then says, loud enough for me to hear, “She can say whatever she wants.” Ruling 2: Technical foul on the assistant coach. To me, this falls under the “disrespectfully addressing an official” portion of the NFHS unsporting rule. I am not OK with a coach contradicting an edict I have delivered to a player. If I don’t punish this behavior, I feel it opens the door to additional problems throughout the remainder of the game.

Play 3: A1’s actions clearly identify him as a game-wrecker, as he picks up two early fouls and complains about several rulings throughout the first half. Late in the first half, he fouls a shooter for his third foul. As the trail official, I am standing near his team bench/ the scorer’s table when the first free throw is missed and A1 is replaced by a sub. As A1 leaves the floor, he says only loud enough for me to hear, “The ball don’t lie.” Ruling 3: I chose to ignore the remark. Yet as I mentioned already, this is one of those situations where I believe I should have issued a technical foul. We all have heard players utter the “ball don’t lie” line after a missed free throw, but this was specifically meant by this player to indicate that I made up a call. My thinking in the moment was that I was the only person who heard it, and I did not want to put a fourth foul on A1 in the first half.

Play 4: I give a team A assistant coach a technical foul for arguing a foul call. I inform the head coach she must remain seated as she has lost access to the coaching box due to the bench technical foul against her team. The head coach argues she does not have to sit because the first technical foul was not against her. I explain the rule to her and tell her again that she has lost the coaching box. She yells out loud enough for everyone to hear, “The game is about the kids. It’s not about you!” Ruling 4: Technical foul. This is a clear case of a coach trying to embarrass me and being disrespectful when all I was trying to do was enforce a rule. Such behavior cannot go unpunished. A possible solution would have been to allow one of my partners to handle the head coach since I was responsible for issuing the the first technical foul, removing myself from an ongoing, escalating situation.

Play 5: During the second half of a tightly contested playoff game, A1 drives through the lane and creates space with her extended off arm. As the center official, I rule a playercontrol foul. A1, who is not in my general vicinity, is frustrated by the call and pulls down her pandemicrequired mask and expresses her displeasure. I see the mask pull, but have no idea what she said. Team B’s coach argues that I need to give her a “T” for unsporting behavior. Ruling 5: No penalty assessed. I have no idea what A1 said, and she did not address me directly. Given the stakes of this particular game, I could not be sure that she was not simply expressing frustration in a key moment versus disrespecting me as an official. The optics in these COVID-19 times may not have been ideal given the mask pull, but I did not feel the behavior rose to the level of a technical foul.

I know that words on paper do not do justice to having to experience these situations in the moment and make real-time decisions. And I do not expect everyone to agree with my decisions. I only hope they open a window to you, the reader, to examine your own philosophy when it comes to unsporting behavior and technical fouls and whether you are satisfied with your own attempts to marry the art of such situations with the science that has been provided to us as officials. Scott Tittrington is an associate editor at Referee. He officiates high school basketball and football, and umpires college and high school baseball. *

Command of Control

By Tim Sloan

The concept of team control is an old one in the game of basketball. Except for situations before the opening tip is possessed, when a try or tap for goal is in flight or the ball is dead, one team or the other is in team control of the ball. That includes when the ball is in player control, loose on a fumble or being passed between teammates. Some might greet this vital knowledge with, “Big deal,” but it sets the framework for logically applying rules for restarting play from the point of interruption and determining the penalty for fouls caused when the ball is not in player control.

Things became more complicated when the concept of a team-control foul was first introduced. It might be like trying to summarize War and Peace in a couple of sentences to say the team-control foul was designed to prevent the team on offense from receiving a double penalty in a block/charge situation. The rationale was that it did not make sense for the penalty for a foul committed by a player in control of the ball to be less severe than the penalty for one committed by a teammate without the ball — for instance, when a Team A player would drive the lane, pass the ball to a teammate, then crash into a Team B player with legal guarding position.

Anyway, it also made it hard on officials — alert to the potential unfairness of their ruling — to distinguish whether the ball left team A’s hands on the pass just before or just after the collision. Rules committees hence put chisel to stone and reasoned that the nuance was immaterial to the central issue that the offense should only be penalized once for the player’s illegal contact. This would be defined, thereafter, as a team-control foul, carrying the same penalty as a player-control foul, even though there are plenty of other scenarios of fouls during team control that have nothing to do with the block/charge. (In NCAAW, there are no player-control or team-control fouls. Both fouls are simply offensive fouls.)

There’s enough grist in the previous paragraphs to write a book, but let’s cover some of the concepts in some handy examples:

Play 1: The opening jump ball is tipped by jumper A1, (a) directly out of bounds, (b) off A2’s foot and then out of bounds, or (c) to the floor, where B2 dives for it but only bumps it out of bounds. Who is entitled to the ball? Ruling 1: Team control is established when player control is established (NFHS 4-12-5; NCAAM 4-9.5; NCAAW 4-8.5), which means holding the ball in this example. In all three scenarios, player control was not established after the jump ball, so the ball will be awarded on a throw-in to the opponent of the player who last touched it. More importantly, since there has been no team control, the possession arrow will be set in favor of the opponent of the thrower once placed at his disposal (NFHS 4-3-3a; NCAAM/W 6-3.4).

Play 2: Team A is in control in the frontcourt. A1 passes to A2 near the division line. A2 jumps from her (a) backcourt, or (b) frontcourt, catches the ball while airborne and passes to A3, who is in the frontcourt, before returning to the floor. Ruling 2: A team A player in this situation may not be the first to touch the ball in the backcourt since it was in team A’s control in the frontcourt (NFHS 9-9-1; NCAAM/W 9-12.4). Airborne A2’s location is where she last touched the court (NFHS 4-35-3; NCAMM 4-23.2; NCAAW 4-18.2), which was her backcourt in (a) and frontcourt in (b). Therefore, (a) is a violation by team A, with a throw-in for team B nearest the backcourt spot from where A2 jumped, while (b) is

Amanda Bender, South Bend, Ind., gives the signal for a team-control foul. Understanding team control will help officials avoid correctable-error situations related to the awarding of unmerited free throws or failing to award a merited free throw.

CASEPLAYS

Free-Throw Violation

Play: Team A is down two points and A1 is shooting the second of two free throws with 1.2 seconds remaining in the game. A1 plans to purposely miss in hopes team A can get an offensive rebound. B5, who is in a marked lane space, knows A1 is going to miss on purpose, and intentionally violates by stepping into the lane before A1 releases the try. A1 then releases the try, and (a) the ball strikes the ring and is rebounded by A4, (b) the ball only hits the backboard and is rebounded by A4, or (c) the ball strikes the ring, but A1 had crossed the free-throw line prior to the ball striking the ring. Ruling: B5 committed a freethrow violation by entering the lane prior to A1 releasing the try. There is no additional penalty to B5 for intentionally violating. When B5 violates and the free throw is unsuccessful as in (a), A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw. When B5 violates, and A1 also violates when the free throw fails to strike the ring or flange as in (b), or A1 crosses the free-throw line prior to the ball striking the ring as in (c), both free-throw violations shall be penalized. Play will resume with an alternating-possession throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot on the endline nearest to where the violations occurred (NFHS 9-1-3a, 9-1-3d, 9-1-3e, 9-1 Penalties 2b, 4b; NCAAM/W 9-1.1.a, 9-1.1.c, 9-1.1.e, 9-1 Penalties b.2, d.2).

Face Guarding

Play: A1 is being guarded by B2. B2 places and keeps his or her hands in front of A1’s face which restricts A1’s ability to see. A1 (a) is holding the ball, or (b) does not have the ball. Is B2’s act illegal? Ruling: A player is prohibited from purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hands near the eyes. The result is a player technical foul (NFHS), Class B technical foul (NCAAM) or player/ substitute technical foul (NCAAW) assessed to B2 (NFHS 10-46d, 10.4.6A; NCAAM 10-4.1.a; NCAAW 10-12.3.a.3). legal and play continues.

Play 3: Same as play 2 except A1 makes a throw-in from the frontcourt endline. Ruling 3: This is legal in both scenarios described in play 2 and play continues (NFHS 9-9-3; NCAAM/W 9-12.10). Some would argue that the rule citations in play 2 and play 3 conflict, but the critical words in NFHS 9-9-1 and NCAAM/W 9-12.4 are “… if it was in A’s control in the frontcourt … .” The throw-in area at the endline is outside the frontcourt, so these rules are not relevant.

Play 4: A1 drives the lane and passes to A2 (a) just before, or (b) just after forcefully contacting B2, who is in legal guarding position. Ruling 4: This is a player-control foul in (a) and team-control foul in (b) on A1 in NFHS and NCAAM, and an offensive foul in NCAAW (NFHS 4-19-6, 4-19-7; NCAAM 4-15.2.a.1, 4-15.2.a.2; NCAAW 10-1.a.1, 10-1.a.2). Either way, team B is awarded a throw-in only (NFHS rule 10 Pen. Summary 1b; NCAAM 10-1 Pen. a2 and a3; NCAAW 10-10 Pen. a2.).

Play 5: A1 drives the lane and, while an airborne shooter, shoots (a) just before, or (b) just after forcefully contacting A2, who is in legal guarding position. Ruling 5: Same deal as in play 4 except both are considered player-control fouls in NFHS and NCAAM, and offensive fouls in NCAAW. This is because during a try for field goal that is in flight there is no team control, but A1 must still account for his or her crime. A player-control foul (NCAAW offensive foul) is committed by a player in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter (NFHS 4-19-6; NCAAM 4-15.2.a.1, NCAAW 10-10.1.a.3).

Play 6: A1 is attempting a three-point try. A2 is contending for rebounding position near the basket and displaces B2 to a spot underneath the basket (a) before, or (b) after A1 releases the shot. Ruling 6: In (a), it’s a team-control foul in NFHS and NCAAM because the ball becomes dead before the shot. A throw-in is awarded to team B (NFHS 4-19-7, rule 10 Pen. Summary 1b; NCAAM 4-15.2.a.2, 10-1 Pen. a3). It’s an offensive foul in NCAAW because a foul has been committed by a player of the team in control of the ball. A throw-in is awarded to team B (10-10.1.a.2, 10-10 Pen. a2). In (b), it’s a common foul in NFHS and a personal foul in NCAAW as there is no team control. Team B is awarded a throw-in or, if in the bonus, appropriate free throws (NFHS 4-19-2, rule 10 Pen. Summary 1a, 3a and 3b; NCAAW 10-10.1, 10-10 Pen. a and c1). It’s a loose-ball foul in NCAAM because the foul is committed after the ball has been released on a try for goal. A throw-in is awarded to team B, unless it is in the bonus (4-15-2a3, 4-24, 10-1 Pen. c and d3).

One final play. Let’s go back to our assertion that one team or the other is in control of the ball, as stated at the outset.

Play 7: Both teams are in the bonus with seconds remaining in the game and the score tied. A1 is holding the ball in the frontcourt and B1 grabs it so that both are holding it. While trying to rip away the ball, B1 shoulders A1, committing a foul. Now what? Ruling 7: Were both teams in control of the ball? Let’s check the rules: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding a live ball (NFHS 4-12-1; NCAAM 4-9.1; NCAAW 4-8.1). A team is in control of the ball when a player of the team is in control (NFHS 4-12-2a; NCAAM 4-9.2.a; NCAAW 4-8.2.a). Team control continues until an opponent secures control (NFHS 4-12-3b; NCAAM 4-9.3; NCAAW 4-8.3). Can two teams control the ball at the same time? One answer results in a throw-in for team A while the other results in free throws. Your best bet? Call the held ball before there’s a foul until someone figures that out.

Understanding team control and its consequences is an element of knowing your definitions. Learn rule 4 before you try to master the rest of the rulebook. You’ll be able to rule on a lot of situations with much more certainty. Tim Sloan, Davenport, Iowa, is a high school football, basketball and volleyball official, and former college football and soccer official. *

seeingis believing

Basketball officials have their own special language. And sometimes, it takes a little while for newer officials to get the hang of it.

A perfect example is the discussion of an official’s positioning on the floor and the effort to obtain the best look at a play or matchup. Veteran officials know exactly what you are talking about when you say you were “stacked” or “straightlined.” However, a new official sitting in on a varsity pregame might not have any idea what you are talking about. Even the phrase “open look” may result in a quizzical stare for a relative novice.

In the photo, Dan McGlasson of El Paso, Texas, finds the perfect position to observe what both the offensive and defensive player are doing in this matchup. This spot on the floor allows him to have an “open look” at the two players and rule on anything that may transpire. If the offensive player starts a dribble and then uses her off arm to push off and gain separation from the defender, he can see it. If the defensive player uses her hands to make illegal contact, he can see it. With this view of the play, there should be no guessing — he has a great angle for observing all the action.

Conversely, if McGlasson is two steps to his right, he runs the risk of being stacked or straightlined behind the offensive player. Instead of looking into the open space between the two players, he would be looking through the offensive player’s back. At that point, he would not be in position to rule on anything happening to the front of the offensive player — he would be guessing versus having definite knowledge.

Say the offensive player were to lose control of the ball after a swipe at the ball by the defender. Clean play with no illegal contact? A foul because she got swiped across the forearm? If the official is straightlined, the official cannot offer a credible ruling.

With 10 players on the floor moving at varying rates of speed and quickness, officials are going to get stacked. It’s just a fact of basketball officiating life. The key is to recognize when you are and take a step or two or “position adjust” to create an open look, develop an angle and put yourself in the best position to officiate.

To steal from the famous quote by astronaut Neil Armstrong, it’s one small step for the official, one giant leap for officiating.

officiating.