Mississippi St/Georgia End of game

[paulsonj72]

If someone can find the end of the Mississippi St/Georgia game and can post it It would be appreciated. Mississippi St won 68-67 on a Technical Foul Free Throw with 0.5 seconds left when a Georgia fan threw something on the court apparently AFTER Georgia was called for an in the act of shooting foul and the MSU player had missed the 1st free throw

[crosscountry55]

Oh. Wow. The "object" was evidently a stuffed animal.

Related article below. Summary of sequence was...tie game, 2 shot foul with 0.5 left. Player misses the first, and the thrown object landed near him as or shortly after he shot. T assessed. POI in NCAA, and he gets one TF free throw (the coach evidently left the same shooter on the line), meaning the T must have been a Class B. Now, with the lead by one and the lane refilled, he intentionally misses the final shot for the shooting foul in order to bleed off the final 0.5 without a throw-in.

I'd be curious to know if there's specific rules language in the NCAAM rule book for this type of thing. I know in high school, calling a T like this, while permitted, is taboo. The emphasis would be on game management addressing it and perhaps ejecting the fan if that person could be identified, but not issuing a T.

https://www.scoresandstats.com/recap...ulldogs-recap/

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'd be curious to know if there's specific rules language in the NCAAM rule book for this type of thing.

LOL you think three D1 major conference refs just made some sheeet up on the fly? Of course there is rule language for this and here it is:

Art. 8. Team followers (fans, bands, cheerleaders and mascots associated with either team) shall not commit an unsportsmanlike act, including, but not limited to, the following:

c. Throwing debris on the court after officials’ jurisdiction has begun;

Note 1: Before penalizing a follower(s) of a team for violating Rule 10-2.8, the officials shall have knowledge as to which team’s follower(s) committed the act.

Note 2: When the misconduct of the follower(s) for violating Rule 10-2.8 is extreme or excessive, such behavior may be penalized by the official requesting home/contest management to eject from the premises the team follower(s) involved in the misbehavior. In such a case, a technical foul shall not be assessed.

[JamesBCrazy]

The fan who threw the object has been confirmed to be a Georgia student.

Video of the incident, via SportsCenter on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/sportscenter/sta...16231181361152

[SC Official]

I'm just waiting for the obligatory "lack of common sense by the crew" post.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm just waiting for the obligatory "lack of common sense by the crew" post.

Fanboys usually don't get here until March Madness. I have no problem with this. There are rules and consequences in life. Do stupid sh*t, pay a sh*tty penalty.

[JRutledge]

Peace

[RefsNCoaches]

Regardless of what was thrown, that can't and should not be happening. I think the crew followed that one to a ...eh, hemm...T.

Fan behavior seems to be a theme this week in NCAA Hoops...

In the IU/Purdue game, you had Hoosier fans chanting "F U Harmmes" to Purdue player Matt Harmmes. I didn't see the whole game but I guess Harmmes got T'd up early in the 2nd half and had to sit for a lenghtly period of time with his 4th PF...he then hit the tip in on what some were saying should have been

What I find funny about these two incidents is this. The IU A.D and Coach said NOTHING to their fans...while former IU Coach and current UGA Coach, Tom Crean, grabbed the mic from public address announcer and said something to his crowd.

Only after backlash on social media did Indiana University brass make comment on the matter.

Not a Purdue fan, not an IU hater...I have a kid that attends IU. I just think fans need to be better from the highest level down to the youth leagues.

[#olderthanilook]

Was Creen upset with the foul call or with his player for fouling?

As for the stuffed animal being thrown onto the court during the FTA....play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Nice job, UGA fan. SMH.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Was Creen upset with the foul call or with his player for fouling?

Not sure with that guy. I first thought he was upset at the call, but clearly, it was a foul.

Peace

[Raymond]

Applicable NCAA-Men's Case Plays

A.R. 261. Who is responsible for behavior of spectators?

RULING: The home management or game committee is responsible for the behavior of spectators. The officials may call an administrative
technical foul on either team when its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game. Such technical fouls
do not count as team fouls.
(Rule 10-2.8)

A.R. 262. Team B is the visiting team. Just before the free-thrower B1 releases the ball, B1 is hit by a coin thrown by a spectator.

RULING: When an official has knowledge as to which team’s follower(s) committed the act, he shall assess an administrative technical foul against that team.
(Rule 10-2.8.c Penalty and Note 1)

[Raymond]

Applicable NFHS Case Play


2.8.1 SITUATION:

What guidelines should be exercised by the officials when spectators' actions are such that they interfere with the administration of the game?

RULING: The rules book states "the official may rule fouls on either team if its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game." It is significant to note the word used is "may." This gives permission, but does not in any way imply that officials must rule technical fouls on team followers or supporters for unsporting acts. Thus, while officials do have the authority to penalize a team whose spectators interfere with the proper conduct of the game, this authority must be used with extreme caution and discretion. While the authority is there, the official must rarely use it, because experience has demonstrated that ruling hasty technical fouls on the crowd rarely solves the problem and may, in fact, result in penalizing the wrong team because the official may not have proper knowledge as to which team's supporters were responsible for the unsporting act.

[Pantherdreams]

What about the Manchurian Candidate?

Assessing the T requires knowledge of who the perpetrator was and which fan base they were a part of.

Now there are the simple clues. Type of stuffed animal thrown, did it come from the student only section/band section, etc

If they were confident who it was and who they were following fill your boots.

I can just imagine this is not as easily said as done. My least favorite games are ones where fans are behind the tea, benches and I hear chirping and now I have to try to do the job I'm doing an figure out if its the bench or the dad's/kids behind the bench. I'm not suggesting that D1 schools smuggle in fans dressed as opposing team to get a big T in a moment of consequence, but that is the illogical extenstion. I guess I'm not a D1 official so maybe they are better at these things than me as well.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Applicable NCAA-Men's Case Plays

A.R. 261. Who is responsible for behavior of spectators?

RULING: The home management or game committee is responsible for the behavior of spectators. The officials may call an administrative
technical foul on either team when its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game. Such technical fouls
do not count as team fouls.
(Rule 10-2.8)

A.R. 262. Team B is the visiting team. Just before the free-thrower B1 releases the ball, B1 is hit by a coin thrown by a spectator.

RULING: When an official has knowledge as to which team’s follower(s) committed the act, he shall assess an administrative technical foul
against that team.
(Rule 10-2.8.c Penalty and Note 1)

Originally Posted by Raymond

Applicable NFHS Case Play


2.8.1 SITUATION:

What guidelines should be exercised by the officials when spectators' actions are such that they interfere with the administration of the game?

RULING: The rules book states "the official may rule fouls on either team if its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game." It is significant to note the word used is "may." This gives permission, but does not in any way imply that officials must rule technical fouls on team followers or supporters for unsporting acts. Thus, while officials do have the authority to penalize a team whose spectators interfere with the proper conduct of the game, this authority must be used with extreme caution and discretion. While the authority is there, the official must rarely use it, because experience has demonstrated that ruling hasty technical fouls on the crowd rarely solves the problem and may, in fact, result in penalizing the wrong team because the official may not have proper knowledge as to which team's supporters were responsible for the unsporting act.

As we can see there is a slight difference between the NCAA Men's (I do not have my NCAA Women's in front of me but I am almost certain that it is the same as the NCAA Men's) and NFHS Rulings.

In NCAA the Officials SHALL access a TF and in NFHS the Officials MAY rule fouls on either team.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

What about the Manchurian Candidate?

Assessing the T requires knowledge of who the perpetrator was and which fan base they were a part of.

Now there are the simple clues. Type of stuffed animal thrown, did it come from the student only section/band section, etc

If they were confident who it was and who they were following fill your boots.

I agree. That is the big problem in this....being certain to penalize the correct team. If this were to get called on a somewhat regular basis, you'd be assured that we'd regularly see an opposing team fan going into other team's student section and throwing something.