Taunting T: Texas Tech/Houston
 

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

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

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

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

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TCOCN_3UAoo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That work?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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?

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

Withhold Whistle ...
 

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)

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

Ok so if this were a debate contest critical of argumentative coherence, sorry JRut....love your work....but Camron wins this round hands down. [emoji3]


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

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

The ball was knocked over the official's head and behind him. No one was getting that ball. Now maybe to some a little quick, but to me that is being so technical and finding nits in the shit if you ask me. I cannot even believe we are even having this discussion (but not on this site) trying to find the perfect ruling so we can say, "See I saw that..."

I doubt the NCAA would even point this out because that is not something they point out. It is not a reviewable situation, so no it would likely not be mentioned at all by them or any supervisor.

Peace

Lousy Nits ...
 

Won't find them in excreta, you will find them attached to the hair on one's head.

https://www.peststrategies.com/wp-co...near-scalp.jpg

Gross.