Wizards-76ers play

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with the announcer. It doesn't look like an anger slam or a protest slam. It looks more like a "YES!!!" slam.

This is where I come in. Definitely not a slam in a taunting fashion or to demonstrate disgust/resentment toward the official. Just a tension-relief semi-jubilation slam.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ODog

This is where I come in. Definitely not a slam in a taunting fashion or to demonstrate disgust/resentment toward the official. Just a tension-relief semi-jubilation slam.

Agree...nothing but maybe a suggestion to him to just give it to an official.

[kk13]

Angry or not, he is drawing attention to himself. T

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by kk13

Angry or not, he is drawing attention to himself. T

And that is illegal by what rule?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is illegal by what rule?

In the NBA it's pretty much automatic.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Raymond

In the NBA it's pretty much automatic.

Camron is trying to say that “drawing attention to yourself” is not listed in the rule book as a technical foul. Which is pedantic and unnecessary.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Camron is trying to say that “drawing attention to yourself” is not listed in the rule book as a technical foul. Which is pedantic and unnecessary.

It...kinda is IMO. See NFHS case 10.4.4 Sit A Comment: A player who strikes either the backboard so forcefully it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration may be assessed a technical foul pursuant to Rule 10-4-3.

If doing one act that can't be ignored b/c it is an attempt to draw attention results in a technical, then why can't another?