Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by ronny mulkey
Quote:
Originally posted by dprice
What is the proper technical foul to administer in this situation.
Team A player who has inside position on FT lane and Team B player who has next lane position are jawing at one another in a manner that cannot be heard out loud. On shot and block out attempt Team A player (inside) winds up and drills Team B with an elbow to the ribs.
I give a personal T, two shots and ball out of bounds. Should this be a flagrant T though?
|
Hardly ever disagree with JR, but I think that you saw an intimidating act and you assessed a technical for it. Good call. Doesn't make sense to let a player "wind up and drill" and just call a common or intentional foul just because contact occurred at the end of the intimidating act. I don't think that it is the spirit and intent of the that rule (which says that you can't have a technical foul if contact occurs during a live ball) to prevent the official from taking care of business when he sees an act meant to intimidate verses an act meant to injure (which is your flagrant). In your situation, ignore the contact and penalize the intimidating act.
|
Ron, language right outa the rule book definitions in R4-19:
-ART. 1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live.
- ART. 5 A technical foul is:
(b) a noncontact foul by a player.
(c) an intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne player.
-ART. 3: A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.
-ART. 4 A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking or kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact...
It doesn't matter what either of us thinks the purpose and intent of the rules should be either. The FED couldn't have written these particular definitions any clearer. You cannot, by rule, call a technical foul of any kind for live-ball illegal contact. Depending on how bad you judge the elbow to be, the only choices you have are a personal foul, an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul. An intentional personal foul sends the same message as a "T" imo. And if you judged it as being a flagrant act, there's really no difference in the outcome between calling a flagrant personal foul or a flagrant technical foul- except for where the throw-in would be.
|
The technical is not for the contact. It is for the intimidating act that came first. We had a 5 page post last year on this very topic and I thought that I swung your opinion on this. Maybe not. If you remember, I think the deal breaker was the poke in the chest during a live ball. Ignore the contact and penalize the intimidating act.
I don't think that the rule is that clear on prohibiting assessing a T for an intimidating act preceding contact. If the elbow had missed, it would have been ok, by rule, to call a T? But, if the elbow connects, you can only call an intentional, flagrant or common foul? Finally, not all acts or conduct can be listed that might lead to a technical foul. I do believe the rules do allow the official to recognize intimidating acts, not listed, and to rule on them.
At any rate, an intentional foul does not carry the same weight as a T - 2 of those and you are gone and in Ga., you are gone for 2 more games. Furthermore, an intentional foul is setting a precedence for the rest of the game on intimidating acts. Once you allow A1 to only get a foul, he has 4 more times to get away with this. What about B1? A6? B6? You will be reffing your *** off.
One problem that I think that I have in my argument is that I can't explain the types of plays that I am talking about here. But the 2 that come to mind is "bowing up" against each other during a live ball and poking someone in the chest during a live ball. Another is the jab or shot with the elbow, not major enough to warrant an ejection but will lead to escalation if not stopped. These are the kinds of acts that also have contact that need a T, not an intentional. Again, this is my opinion.
Bottom line - if I see an act clearly designed to intimidate or instigate, followed by slight contact during a live ball, I am calling a T. We'll just have to disagree on this.
Mulk