Taunting T: Texas Tech/Houston

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Still there.

10.5.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

The case play you refer to is where calling the T would take a way an obvious scoring opportunity. That isn't applicable here. Call the game as it happens, not manipulate it unnecessarily just to make it easier. The T occurred during a live ball not in team control, call it as such. It isn't that difficult.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The case play you refer to is where calling the T would take a way an obvious scoring opportunity. That isn't applicable here. Call the game as it happens, not manipulate it unnecessarily just to make it easier. The T occurred during a live ball not in team control, call it as such. It isn't that difficult.

I think people are doing a lot of speculating and twisting themselves into a box. I think this T is clearly what was said right after the block. I have no issues with the way this was handled. Again I think this is a huge assumption at this point as to anything other than the end of the game. Again, I think people just want to be super perfect with things they do not know what was ruled. Again I am good with the situation.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The case play you refer to is where calling the T would take a way an obvious scoring opportunity. That isn't applicable here. Call the game as it happens, not manipulate it unnecessarily just to make it easier. The T occurred during a live ball not in team control, call it as such. It isn't that difficult.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think people are doing a lot of speculating and twisting themselves into a box. I think this T is clearly what was said right after the block. I have no issues with the way this was handled. Again I think this is a huge assumption at this point as to anything other than the end of the game. Again, I think people just want to be super perfect with things they do not know what was ruled. Again I am good with the situation.

Ok so if this were a debate contest critical of argumentative coherence, sorry JRut....love your work....but Camron wins this round hands down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Ok so if this were a debate contest critical of argumentative coherence, sorry JRut....love your work....but Camron wins this round hands down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not trying to win an argument, I find this discussion extremely assumptive to say for sure what the T was for. I am going to try to find out, but I can bet money that was just resulted in the actions after the blocked shot. If I get different information I will clarify this as I did in the WVU-Gonzaga situation.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not trying to win an argument, I find this discussion extremely assumptive to say for sure what the T was for. I am going to try to find out, but I can bet money that was just resulted in the actions after the blocked shot. If I get different information I will clarify this as I did in the WVU-Gonzaga situation.

Peace

At least as far as Cam and I are concerned, we don’t care about hat the T was for (someone else in the thread pondered that). Regardless of what it was for, and regardless of whether it was before or after the blocked shot, the calling official began to signal before the ball was dead. So whatever his signal was reflecting must have likewise occurred before the ball was dead.

The POI should have been an AP throw-in for Houston. The only alternative explanation is that whatever the T was for occurred before the try was released. But I seriously doubt that.

Going back to my original question, I wonder what the national coordinator or the average commissioner would want to see happen here? Check the monitor to make sure you get the POI right, or treat it as if the foul occurred after the ball was OOB like everyone in the building probably just assumed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk