MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[KnightSlappy]

 If I remember correctly, in the case of GVW touching Draayer while he was shooting, GVW was safely in the coaching box, giving instructions to his players.  He just absent-mindedly put up a hand as Draayer positioned himself right in front of him.  GVW instantly accepted responsibility for his error, and had one of those "I can't believe I just did that" looks on his face.  No malicious intent on the coach's part, just a silly mistake that the refs rightly called.

By definition, the coaching box is entirely out of bounds.  At its closest point, the 3 point line is 63 inches from the sideline (in the corners, using the old men's three point line when this happened).  So, either Draayer was bombing away from beyond NBA depth, or GVW was well onto the court.  I'm sure it wasn't intentional or malicious, but when you repeatedly put yourself in a position (i.e. on the court during play) for bad things to happen, eventually they do.  This is why the NCAA rulebook is serious on this matter.

It was Draayer, so an NBA range launch isn't out of the question.

On this note, has there ever been a smart crafty player that has "initiated" the inadvertent contact with a coach on the floor to draw a call?

I've often thought of this too. What if an opposing player simply and purposefully ran into a coach that was on the floor. You've still gotta T up the coach. Right?

[Happy Calvin Guy]

On this note, has there ever been a smart crafty player that has "initiated" the inadvertent contact with a coach on the floor to draw a call?

this could take flopping to a whole 'nother level.  Not sure we want to go there.

[realist]

Closest I have seen is a smart player calling a coach on the floor to refs attention.   The coach stepped backwards on the floor to facilitate players getting to scorer's bench.

[oldknight]

You're correct. A few years back GVW made contact with Andy Draayer as he was preparing to successfully launch a three. The ref awarded Calvin the basket plus two free throws.

How would the officials have handled GVW's foul  if Draayer had missed?

I would imagine Calvin would be awarded 2 shots and the ball.  How else might it be handled?

He shot  a 3. It seems to me he should get 3 foul shots plus the technical and the ball. Do you reward a coach for interfering with play? 

Maybe this question needs to be answered first: did GVW touch the player on the court before or after he released the ball?

It's been a few years but as I recollect the event, Calvin actually caught a break on that play. Draayer was dribbling right past the Hope bench at the old Fieldhouse when Glenn made contact. After the contact, Andy took yet another dribble before liftoff. Unless you're a fan of the NBA continuation rule the ref should have waived off the basket. But I believe the Knights were in the process of making a comeback and the official got caught up in the moment.

[Erm Schmigget]

You're correct. A few years back GVW made contact with Andy Draayer as he was preparing to successfully launch a three. The ref awarded Calvin the basket plus two free throws.

How would the officials have handled GVW's foul  if Draayer had missed?

I would imagine Calvin would be awarded 2 shots and the ball.  How else might it be handled?

He shot  a 3. It seems to me he should get 3 foul shots plus the technical and the ball. Do you reward a coach for interfering with play? 

Maybe this question needs to be answered first: did GVW touch the player on the court before or after he released the ball?

It's been a few years but as I recollect the event, Calvin actually caught a break on that play. Draayer was dribbling right past the Hope bench at the old Fieldhouse when Glenn made contact. After the contact, Andy took yet another dribble before liftoff. Unless you're a fan of the NBA continuation rule the ref should have waived off the basket. But I believe the Knights were in the process of making a comeback and the official got caught up in the moment.

Thanks for clearing that up, oldknight.  I forgot about the extra dribble.  Gotta hand it to Draayer for having the presence of mind to keep playing after the contact.  The lesson is, finish what you start, even if the whistle has blown.  I got the benefit of this in a roller hockey game once.  I was tripped while stick-handling the ball, and the ref raised his hand to indicate the rather obvious penalty.  While falling, I shot the ball from the red line, and it dribbled past the goalie, who thought play had ended.  Hockey rules state, though, that the play continues after a penalty has occurred until the offending team touched the puck (or ball).  Bad goalie!  Thanks for the goal, eh.   

[Knightmare]

HCG:  Draayer repeatedly bombed away from NBA depth.

standout:  Is interference the call when a defender hacks a shooter, thus "interfering" with the shot, thus awarding the basket to the shooter?

I understand your point but I think that those are two distinctly different situations.  Again, I'm not saying that is the current rule but the way I would like to see it interpreted.  My reasoning being that it is a much more severe violation than a defender catching a shooter's hand or elbow on the shot.  

***HYPOTHETICAL***  If the basket isn't awarded on a coaching interference then what is to stop a coach from "accidentally" and "inadvertently" making slight contact in an end-game situation to prevent a 3-pt. shot from going up and potentially tying the game.  That'd be like a 6th defender if the offensive player was along the sidelines near the benches.

Remember, the previous situation is hypothetical, I fully acknowledge that it is highly unlikely but I ask to generate thoughtful discussion so don't go disparaging me or knocking down karma for the crazy idea, just tossing a possibility out there that could hypothetically happen.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

Oddly enough as we have this conversation about the coaches box Seth Davis has mentioned the issue in his weekly si.com column, "Hoop Thoughts" http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/02/08/georgetown/1.html

Half-way through the second page he says "Did I miss the press release announcing the elimination of the coaches' box? Because as far as I can tell, there's not a single coach staying in it."

[oldknight]

HCG:  Draayer repeatedly bombed away from NBA depth.

standout:  Is interference the call when a defender hacks a shooter, thus "interfering" with the shot, thus awarding the basket to the shooter?

I understand your point but I think that those are two distinctly different situations.  Again, I'm not saying that is the current rule but the way I would like to see it interpreted.  My reasoning being that it is a much more severe violation than a defender catching a shooter's hand or elbow on the shot.  

***HYPOTHETICAL***  If the basket isn't awarded on a coaching interference then what is to stop a coach from "accidentally" and "inadvertently" making slight contact in an end-game situation to prevent a 3-pt. shot from going up and potentially tying the game.  That'd be like a 6th defender if the offensive player was along the sidelines near the benches.

Remember, the previous situation is hypothetical, I fully acknowledge that it is highly unlikely but I ask to generate thoughtful discussion so don't go disparaging me or knocking down karma for the crazy idea, just tossing a possibility out there that could hypothetically happen.

I suppose if a coach--with his team leading by 3--wants to stop the clock, send the opponent's best shooter to the charity stripe for two free throws, and then give them a chance to win with a two point basket on the ensuing inbounds play, he could.

[Erm Schmigget]

HCG:  Draayer repeatedly bombed away from NBA depth.

standout:  Is interference the call when a defender hacks a shooter, thus "interfering" with the shot, thus awarding the basket to the shooter?

I understand your point but I think that those are two distinctly different situations.  Again, I'm not saying that is the current rule but the way I would like to see it interpreted.  My reasoning being that it is a much more severe violation than a defender catching a shooter's hand or elbow on the shot.  

***HYPOTHETICAL***  If the basket isn't awarded on a coaching interference then what is to stop a coach from "accidentally" and "inadvertently" making slight contact in an end-game situation to prevent a 3-pt. shot from going up and potentially tying the game.  That'd be like a 6th defender if the offensive player was along the sidelines near the benches.

Remember, the previous situation is hypothetical, I fully acknowledge that it is highly unlikely but I ask to generate thoughtful discussion so don't go disparaging me or knocking down karma for the crazy idea, just tossing a possibility out there that could hypothetically happen.

These are all reasons why the technical call is made in the first place.  Your player gets touched by a coach, you get the benefit of the technical.  I'm not sure why you think points should automatically go on the board in this one scenario.  If a flagrant foul is the reason for the technical, the points don't automatically go on the board either.  They have to be scored then, too.  It can be argued that all technical fouls are an interferance with the play of the game.  That doesn't mean they should all result in automatic points, like goal-tending, which I believe is your initial suggestion.

This is just discussion.  I haven't messed with your karma, but if you suggest seomthing that I think is kind of out in left field, I'm going to ask you to defend your position.

[realist]

It is important that one foul is on a player on the floor by another player on the floor. In the second case it is on a coach or other player "not legally on the floor".   One shouldn't compare a situation in the normal course of the game with one that is not normal.
It was not Draayer's fault that the ref. did not stop play before the shot.  To take away the made shot would in essence be punishing the victim.
It may be that GVW's own reaction confirmed to the ref that contact had in fact occured.

[Erm Schmigget]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that they should have taken away Draayer's shot.  That was not the way the refs saw the sequence of actions in the game...it was suggested here by oldknight, but just as an aside.  I guess the problem that I have with standout's assertion that points should go on the board for a coach making physical contact with a player...and I'll say shooting OR not...is that, the only time the points are awarded without the ball actually going all the way through the hoop is in the case of goal-tending.  Goal-tending itself is an infraction, but it is not a foul, nor is it a technical.  To introduce the awarding of points for a shot that wasn't made due to a foul, is to open a can of worms I don't think anyone wants to see opened.

[Knightmare]

HCG:  Draayer repeatedly bombed away from NBA depth.

standout:  Is interference the call when a defender hacks a shooter, thus "interfering" with the shot, thus awarding the basket to the shooter?

I understand your point but I think that those are two distinctly different situations.  Again, I'm not saying that is the current rule but the way I would like to see it interpreted.  My reasoning being that it is a much more severe violation than a defender catching a shooter's hand or elbow on the shot.  

***HYPOTHETICAL***  If the basket isn't awarded on a coaching interference then what is to stop a coach from "accidentally" and "inadvertently" making slight contact in an end-game situation to prevent a 3-pt. shot from going up and potentially tying the game.  That'd be like a 6th defender if the offensive player was along the sidelines near the benches.

Remember, the previous situation is hypothetical, I fully acknowledge that it is highly unlikely but I ask to generate thoughtful discussion so don't go disparaging me or knocking down karma for the crazy idea, just tossing a possibility out there that could hypothetically happen.

These are all reasons why the technical call is made in the first place.  Your player gets touched by a coach, you get the benefit of the technical.  I'm not sure why you think points should automatically go on the board in this one scenario.  If a flagrant foul is the reason for the technical, the points don't automatically go on the board either.  They have to be scored then, too.  It can be argued that all technical fouls are an interferance with the play of the game.  That doesn't mean they should all result in automatic points, like goal-tending, which I believe is your initial suggestion.

This is just discussion.  I haven't messed with your karma, but if you suggest seomthing that I think is kind of out in left field, I'm going to ask you to defend your position.

Erm,  you do make a good point that does sway me somewhat closer to your side.  I guess my argument or defense of my position was just made by realist in that you can't compare a normal foul by a player on the court to a foul by someone that shouldn't even be participating.  I can defintely see the flip side of the coin as well though.

I gotta say, I'm not to worried about karma, but someone is pretty gutless on this board when even after my disclaimer they still knock down my karma rating  .  Whoever did, that was poor taste for a very civil discussion and it was just a "discussion idea', not even something I'm totally convinced of myself.  And Erm, no problem whatsoever with asking for a defense of my position, I enjoy the conversation, and admittedly I'm not totally convinced by my own argument/defense at this point  

[Erm Schmigget]

Standout, it's an interesting enough discussion topic, and I'm having trouble with why you should have been smited for it, too.  There have been posters here who have given up on contributing because of the karma fairies...I hope you don't become one of them.

+k just for having the wherewithall to post your thoughts and questions in the interest of discussion.  After all, this is a basketball discussion board, isn't it!   

[realist]

Who asked for the coaching box?  Was it opposing coaches who wanted to even or level the playing court with more animated peers?  Was it refs. wanting to gain control over coach's actions?  Was it put in place for safety or some other reason by the NCAA?  
If it was other coaches that asked for the rule perhaps if they are all doing it now than the rule is unnecessary.
If refs. asked for the rule, for what they thought were valid reasons, not using or enforcing the box does not make sense.
If a third party insisted on the rule the refs. may have figured they got "better things to do" keeping up with the game than worrying about where a coach might be.
It takes a strong ref. or a obvious violation for a ref. to T a coach when the ref. knows the coach can file a complaint with the conference head of officals who hires, and determines assignments.  

[Erm Schmigget]

I was sitting behind the scorer's table at an Aquinas game a couple years ago and noticed the AQ coach wandering far down the sideline to yell at the refs while the game was in play.  I wondered--loud enough, I guess--"where is that coach's box, anyway?"  The AQ coach turned and rather beligerantly said "Anywhere I want!"  It took me aback, and delayed my reaction just enough that I didn't bother to say directly to him, "What are you, 4?"