NCAA Hanging On Rim Technical Foul ...

[JRutledge]

Who cares what Underwood said. I doubt that conversation even went that way or in that manner. I would not think it would be smart for an official at that level to interact with the coach in that way. I am not buying that at all.

Peace

[SC Official]

The only thing more insane than Underwood’s fanboy take is the fact that people on this forum genuinely believe that interaction with O’Connell happened.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares what Underwood said. I doubt that conversation even went that way or in that manner. I would not think it would be smart for an official at that level to interact with the coach in that way. I am not buying that at all.

Peace

Originally Posted by SC Official

The only thing more insane than Underwood’s fanboy take is the fact that people on this forum genuinely believe that interaction with O’Connell happened.

I'm trying to figure out when this conversation would have taken place. If it's going to happen, it would be the next time O'Connell was in front of his bench. After that point everybody has moved on and we don't revisit plays with coaches, especially after a game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The only thing more insane than Underwood’s fanboy take is the fact that people on this forum genuinely believe that interaction with O’Connell happened.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm trying to figure out when this conversation would have taken place. If it's going to happen, it would be the next time O'Connell was in front of his bench. After that point everybody has moved on and we don't revisit plays with coaches, especially after a game.

Exactly. And if he said something during the game, when would he have come to that epiphany?

I say this all the time, we do not know really when we miss most calls until we see the video. We might have a feeling, but we do not know how bad it looks or good it looks until we see the video.

Peace

[tnolan]

There was a similar play in my area this year that we've discussed back and forth. In a game that was already in hand, it was basically the same motion of the momentum swing through and 1 swing back without lift while another player was in close enough proximity to further allow the swing.
The lead had issued a technical and actually the Trail intercepted to discuss that there was a player near enough that it shouldn't be a technical.
The Lead stuck with the call.

The NCAA probably already has video examples somewhere on this of what should and should not be called a technical foul, but I know the NFHS doesn't and should definitely make it a POE this coming year WITH enough video examples that should pretty much cover most situations. Officials need to be able to comprehend between showboating, excess, etc... and momentum, player safety, etc...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tnolan

There was a similar play in my area this year that we've discussed back and forth. In a game that was already in hand, it was basically the same motion of the momentum swing through and 1 swing back without lift while another player was in close enough proximity to further allow the swing.
The lead had issued a technical and actually the Trail intercepted to discuss that there was a player near enough that it shouldn't be a technical.
The Lead stuck with the call.

The NCAA probably already has video examples somewhere on this of what should and should not be called a technical foul, but I know the NFHS doesn't and should definitely make it a POE this coming year WITH enough video examples that should pretty much cover most situations. Officials need to be able to comprehend between showboating, excess, etc... and momentum, player safety, etc...

It could be addressed, but this is the only call like this I have seen in some time anyway. So I doubt they need to make a big deal out of it if this remains the only call that was made and the NCAA feels this is nothing in the long run. But it could come up, I just do not think they will bother unless we have several more calls related to dunks.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tnolan

I feel at the NFHS level at least, that it should be brought up for discussion between officials and coaches so that everyone is on the same page. And maybe that's just me having seen it a few times this year (both correctly and incorrectly penalized).

Also, not to hi-jack this thread but sort of on topic, this occurred during the Texas Tech/Notre Dame game:
(5:29 - 5:41 mark)



This is definitely OBI, but in a live game I'm not sure if any official is going to be able to pick this out and discern between that and a normal two-handed dunk, depending on your angle. During the slow motion replay when this was live, it was much easier to tell.

The play you showed is not the same as the Illinois play. Not even close.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tnolan

... this occurred during the Texas Tech/Notre Dame game: (5:29 - 5:41 mark)

Thanks for the video tnolan. The second non-dunking hand on the rim makes this an interesting play to discuss.

For high school rules:

NFHS 10-4-4-A: A player must not: Illegally contact the backboard/ring by: Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage (“The Ralph Sampson Rule”).

Maybe he didn't gain an advantage?

NFHS 4-6-1: Basket interference occurs when a player: Touches the ball or any part of the basket (including the net) while the ball is on or within either basket. Exception: In Art. 1 … if a player has his/her hand legally in contact with the ball, it is not a violation if such contact with the ball continues after it enters the imaginary cylinder or if in such action, the player touches the basket. Dunking or stuffing is legal and is not basket interference (“The Bill Russell Rule”).

Maybe the 4-6-1 Exception makes this a legal play? But his left hand wasn't in contact with the ball?