Wisconsin - Maryland review vid request.

[Nevadaref]

Other than DJ deeming it an FF1 instead of an FF2 his comment sounds rather reasonable to me.

Btw Stone was suspended for Maryland's next game against Minn.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Other than DJ deeming it an FF1 instead of an FF2 his comment sounds rather reasonable to me.

Btw Stone was suspended for Maryland's next game against Minn.

I believe his comment was partially inaccurate because you can't have an FF1 when the ball is dead.

[Nevadaref]

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

It's pretty clear to me. CDBT fouls = F1 technicals. It was annoying at first but at least CDBT sticks out so we don't confuse them with anything else.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's pretty clear to me. CDBT fouls = F1 technicals. It was annoying at first but at least CDBT sticks out so we don't confuse them with anything else.

CDBT do NOT equal F1's. an F1 is the HS equivalent of a intentional foul and is for live ball contact. CDBT can be just that a T or a F2. The only difference is the spot the ball is put into play and a player being dq'd.

A flagrant foul 1 ONLY exists as a personal foul. The F2 can be a personal or Technical foul depending on when the contact occurs.

[Nevadaref]

Uh deecee, he knows. Did you notice that he wrote "F1 technicals"? There is no such animal in the NCAA rulesbook, but that is essentially what a CDBTF is. He and I were discussing the terminology and the merit of the NCAA just renaming the CDBFT an F1 technical foul. I feel that would be a simpler naming system and cause less confusion in communicating the call to the coaches and media. He replied that he had gotten used to the CDBTF nomenclature.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by deecee

CDBT do NOT equal F1's. an F1 is the HS equivalent of a intentional foul and is for live ball contact. CDBT can be just that a T or a F2. The only difference is the spot the ball is put into play and a player being dq'd.

A flagrant foul 1 ONLY exists as a personal foul. The F2 can be a personal or Technical foul depending on when the contact occurs.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Uh deecee, he knows. Did you notice that he wrote "F1 technicals"? There is no such animal in the NCAA rulesbook, but that is essentially what a CDBTF is. He and I were discussing the terminology and the merit of the NCAA just renaming the CDBFT an F1 technical foul. I feel that would be a simpler naming system and cause less confusion in communicating the call to the coaches and media. He replied that he had gotten used to the CDBTF nomenclature.

What Nevada said. I'm well aware F1s only exist as live-ball fouls in the NCAA universe. When the terminology was changed a few years ago the way I remembered a CDBT was to think, "Oh, it's an F1 technical."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

If you are to make statements to the press an official, you need to properly address the scenario using the appropriate terms. An F1 is a personal foul that results in 2 shots by the offended players and a throw-in at the spot of the foul. A CDBT is a Class A technical that results in shots by any offended team player and a division line throw-in.

The fact that he jumbled up the rule terminology may have played a part in them not properly ruling this an F2 in the first place.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If you are to make statements to the press an official, you need to properly address the scenario using the appropriate terms. An F1 is a personal foul that results in 2 shots by the offended players and a throw-in at the spot of the foul. A CDBT is a Class A technical that results in shots by any offended team player and a division line throw-in.

The fact that he jumbled up the rule terminology may have played a part in them not properly ruling this an F2 in the first place.

I seriously doubt it had an impact on the decision made on the court to not disqualify the offending player. He was merely making the point to the media that it was a level 1 offense, not a level 2.

I still think that there are too many classifications for fouls in the NCAA book. Streamline it by going with either level 1 & level 2 or class a & class b for all types of fouls which aren't normal fouls. I don't understand why the same system can't apply to both personal and technical fouls.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I still think that there are too many classifications for fouls in the NCAA book. Streamline it by going with either level 1 & level 2 or class a & class b for all types of fouls which aren't normal fouls. I don't understand why the same system can't apply to both personal and technical fouls.

I think at one point it did. Then they switched F1 T to CDBT. Or, maybe I'm mis-remembering.

And, while his comments could be criticized if it was some written response or he had time to edit, or was an article in RefMag, etc. -- we all use some shortcuts or slightly incorrect nomenclature when speaking / teaching. Shouldn't happen, but the meaning was pretty clear.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I believe his comment was partially inaccurate because you can't have an FF1 when the ball is dead.

Why not?

Contact that would be and FF1 during a live ball becomes a T during a dead ball. Because it happens during a dead ball, it becomes a T. If it is not enough for an FF1, it is not enough for a dead ball contact T.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why not?

Because FF1 is LIVE ball only. Dead ball you have a "contact dead ball T" or unsporting T. you can have dead ball FF2 but not 1.

Also the resumption of play for a FF versus T is different.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why not?

Contact that would be and FF1 during a live ball becomes a T during a dead ball. Because it happens during a dead ball, it becomes a T. If it is not enough for an FF1, it is not enough for a dead ball contact T.

Why not? Because the foul chart at the back of the NCAA rule book makes pretty clear that a flagrant 1 foul is a live ball personal foul.

There is no such thing as an FF1 technical. If some officials think of it that way, fine, but it's still not the correct terminology. It's not like NFHS where an intentional foul can be personal or technical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Why not? Because the foul chart at the back of the NCAA rule book makes pretty clear that a flagrant 1 foul is a live ball personal foul.

There is no such thing as an FF1 technical. If some officials think of it that way, fine, but it's still not the correct terminology. It's not like NFHS where an intentional foul can be personal or technical.

The point is that when contact that would be a FF1 during a live ball occurs, it should be ruled a technical during a dead ball. If it doesn't rise to the level of a FF1, it is generally not enough to be called (at least not for the contact itself).