Quote:
Originally posted by jbduke
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
FTs were attempted, so Ts were definitely charged. I have to assume that the actions were deemed a false double technical foul.
Having watched the play numerous times on replay, I don't concur with that decision. A double tech was the obvious call. Duke #3 made contact with BC #11 and he responed by shoving Duke #3. Why the false?
|
If you don't think that this situation fits the defintion of the false double technical, well, then, wow.
You answered your own question. If the narrative of two unsporting events includes the word "then," then it's a false double, and both teams shoot. Where's the problem?
|
Here's what I believed both of the players were charged with:
Art. 7. (Men) Intentional technical foul. An intentional technical foul involves intentionally contacting an opponent in a non-flagrant manner when the ball is dead.
Which carries this penalty:
Section 16. (Men) Penalty for Intentional Technical Fouls
Art. 1. The penalty for an intentional technical foul shall be two free throws awarded to a player of the offended team and possession of the ball to the offended team at a designated spot at the division line.
Art. 2. The offender shall not be ejected.
Art. 3. A combination of one intentional technical foul with two indirect technical fouls (see Rules 10-3.8 through 10-3.19) and with one direct technical foul shall result in the ejection of the offender.
Art. 4. An intentional technical foul shall count toward a playerÂ’s five fouls for disqualification and toward the team-foul total.
Art. 5. When double intentional technical fouls are committed, no free throws shall be awarded.
Art. 6. The offenders in a double intentional technical foul shall not be ejected.
Art. 7. After a double intentional technical foul, the ball shall be put in play at the point of interruption.
Here are the definitions that we are discussing:
Art. 11. Double technical foul. A double technical foul occurs when opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.
Art. 12. False double foul. A false double foul occurs when there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the game clock is started after it is stopped for the first but such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.
To me the definition in article 11 is a better fit.
However, while combing the rules book, another idea came to me. Perhaps only the Boston College player was charged with an Intentional technical foul and the Duke player was only charged with a direct technical foul for unsporting conduct. His reaction to the play may have been deemed such, but there was no intent to contact the opposing player.
In that case, it seems that the following clip governs.
f. In the case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul shall carry its own penalty. When one of the fouls is a direct or indirect technical foul, the ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption.
1. When one of the fouls is a single (men) intentional technical foul or a single flagrant technical foul, the penalties shall be administered in the order of occurrence and the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at the division line on either side of the playing court.
This is now my best guess of how the game officials ruled on the play. It is certainly valid to see the players' actions in that manner.