Taunting T: Texas Tech/Houston

[crosscountry55]

JRut, would love to talk about the subject play on your site. I had no issue with the call, but was the ball really dead when the Tfoul took place? Has POI implications.

Is this the kind of thing we should go to the monitor to check, or would that be splitting hairs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Why should it matter? AFAIK, class A technical fouls (taunting is a Class A technical foul) are enforced with 2 free throws and the game resuming from the point of interruption, whether or not the ball is dead.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why should it matter? AFAIK, class A technical fouls (taunting is a Class A technical foul) are enforced with 2 free throws and the game resuming from the point of interruption, whether or not the ball is dead.

This is true. My point is that they treated the POI as though the TF followed an OOB violation. Strictly speaking, that’s not what happened; the TF occurred while the ball was live with no team in control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why should it matter? AFAIK, class A technical fouls (taunting is a Class A technical foul) are enforced with 2 free throws and the game resuming from the point of interruption, whether or not the ball is dead.

So how should play have resumed after the technical foul free throws were shot?

Remember, you say it doesn't if matter the ball was dead or not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

I suppose it’s about time I learn how to embed:



That work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Yes, it worked.

I don't understand why the official walked all the way into the team bench area and also put his hands on the player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes, it worked.

I don't understand why the official walked all the way into the team bench area and also put his hands on the player.

I didn't like seeing the official putting hands on the player, either.

Not knowing NCAA-M rules (any more) or mechanics:

• Perhaps the official knew the head coach would want to know why the T was called and the official chose to go explain it without waiting to be asked? That's the best guess I can come up with.
• Why didn't the coach get a bench warning for being well across the division line when initially questioning the call or for subsequently leaving the box after he was walked back to it by the calling official? Is there greater leeway with the box at the higher collegiate levels?

[JRutledge]

A couple of things.

This is a Final Four official. If you saw any parts of this second half, this game was getting out of hand quickly. There were a few other players where players had to be separated.

Secondly, this was a T on a player after a lot of other crap that took place. I am sure the official wanted to make sure the coach knew exactly what took place. I am sure they have a relationship as both coach and official have been around in a few other leagues for some time.

Finally, this was a dead ball going to Texas Tech. They were getting the ball and the penalty for an unsporting T which is a Class A technical foul, is simply POI. The ball was going to be on the end line, that is where they put the ball after the free throws.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Finally, this was a dead ball going to Texas Tech. They were getting the ball and the penalty for an unsporting T which is a Class A technical foul, is simply POI. The ball was going to be on the end line, that is where they put the ball after the free throws.

Was it? Sure looked to me like like the taunt itself took place before the blocked shot touched OOB. Even the official’s signal began before it did.

Houston had the arrow. Tech got the throw-in. Just sayin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This is true. My point is that they treated the POI as though the TF followed an OOB violation. Strictly speaking, that’s not what happened; the TF occurred while the ball was live with no team in control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In that case, the proper sequence would be 2 shots, possession to the team entitled to it based on the AP arrow, and a full reset of the shot clock (20 seconds if it was awarded to the team who would be in their frontcourt).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Was it? Sure looked to me like like the taunt itself took place before the blocked shot touched OOB. Even the official’s signal began before it did.

Houston had the arrow. Tech got the throw-in. Just sayin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't....the ball was still live when the infraction that drew the T occurred. Should have gone to the arrow.

Now, imagine if they had called a foul on the first defender....there was certainly enough contact there from a player without LGP that it wouldn't be a surprise to see one. If that had been called, the ball would have been dead by the time of the T since the try would end on the block.

[thumpferee]

Are we sure the T wasn't for grabbing the net?

[crosscountry55]

I have to say I kind of chuckled at the entire Houston team’s histrionics as soon as the call was made.

The paradox is that whenever that happens, you know the call was warranted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Was it? Sure looked to me like like the taunt itself took place before the blocked shot touched OOB. Even the official’s signal began before it did.

Houston had the arrow. Tech got the throw-in. Just sayin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can always wait for the play to end to call a technical foul. As a matter of fact this was talked about in the NCAA meeting specifically if I recall. I have no issues with a T being given after the player is over. I think otherwise is not usually normal practice. Let the play finish and call the T. Not stopping play just to call a T when this play had not ended. And that used to be in the NF casebook as well. Not sure what the hurry is other than to split hairs so we can enforce other rules.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Are we sure the T wasn't for grabbing the net?

Yes, because that would have been a Class B Technical foul, which comes to be one free throw instead of 2 that they actually shot. So unless they kicked that part of the rule, then that would be a stretch. I'm sorry, I see nothing with the net that would warrant a T either. He did not use the net to get or get any advantage whatsoever. The net touching was very inadvertent and he did not need help to block the shot by using the net. I would think if that was the case he would use the ring.

Peace