As a non-referee, I enjoy the insight that this forum provides, especially in understanding rules interpretations for situations that do not happen on a regular basis.

I have a question regarding such a situation that occurred late in the Illinois-Michigan State game. In case you didn't see the game, here is what happened:

Illinois player has possession of ball and Michigan State defender commits common foul (MSU not yet over the limit).
Illinois player is then charged with a technical for throwing his elbow at the MSU player. MSU shoots the two free throws for the T and is awarded the ball at half court.

My question is this: I thought that the NCAA changed its rules so that there was no change of possession as a result of a technical. If this were the case, Illinois would have maintained possession. What am I missing? Thx.

[Edited by aces88 on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 09:44 AM]

If it's a technical foul on a player for intentional contact, it isn't a POI situation. The opposing team gets 2 shots and the ball.

EDIT: All contact technical fouls are either intentional or flagrant.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 05:53 PM]

Sounds like a good strategy -- commit a T, get shots and the ball. ;)

Oops!
 

Sounds like a good strategy -- commit a T, get shots and the ball.

Sorry...MSU shoots the free throws and is awarded possession. I have corrected the original post.

Are you sure about this is the ruling? Isn't this a false double?

Originally posted by BktBallRef

If it's a direct technical foul on a player for intentional contact, it isn't a POI situation. The opposing team gets 2 shots and the ball.

I did some research of my own and found out that the NCAA posts their rules online.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Rule 10.8.1 lists the penalty for a direct technical foul as two shots to the offended team. The ball is then put back in play at the POI.

Reading further, Rule 10.16 states that the penalty for an intentional technical foul would be two shots to the offended team as well as possession of the ball. Since there was no ejection on the play, this was probably the call.

Thanks for your response.

Bart Tyson originally posted:

Are you sure about this is the ruling? Isn't this a false double?

As defined in Rule 4.26.12, I would say yes.

Further, Rule 8.6.1 states: "After a false double foul, the ball shall be put in play as if the penalty for the last foul of the false double foul were the only one administered." This explains why MSU was awarded possession of the ball.

Thanks.

Of course this was the call. The ball was dead. It was a contact foul. Contact duirng a dead ball is ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant. THe player wasn't ejected, so it wasn't flagrant. The only choice left is "intentional technical foul". 2 shots and the ball.

That's what Tony said.

Well, talking about splitting hairs. What is the difference between false double, vs A1 foul followed by B1 (dead ball) push and you assess a intentional T. I guess my question is, how would you destinguish between which one of these two to call?

Bart, I'm not sure what your play is but if B1 fouls A1 followed by contact after the whistle you can ignore it or assess an intentional or flagrant T (as has been said already). If you go with the T then it's not POI (because it's dead ball contact) so A1 shoots his FTs then you penalize the T, 2 shots & the ball at midcourt.

Make sense?

Dan_ref, I may be wrong, however, isn't the following a false double; B1 is assessed a common foul, now we have a dead ball situation. Now A1 pushes B1 because she didn't like being fouled by B1. Beep, you call a T. (not a intentional T).

By ncaa rule (men at least, maybe not women?) dead ball contact is intentional. IOO if you decide to go with the T you can't decide to call it unintentional.

OK then, a false double has to be a Non-contact T? i.e. a unsporting T.

No, the second foul can be any type of T. It's just handled differently.

My head hurts.

OK, back to one of my earlier questions. dead ball contact T-foul. describe a situation that not be a intentional T?

When it's flagrant. Penalty is the same plus the offender is DQ'ed.

(That's the point, under ncaa-m rules a dead ball contact T is either intentional or flagrant.)

Dan_ref, you are making this difficult. Exclude a Flagrant.

Bart, that's what I'm trying to tell you. Under ncaa-m rules your choices in this case are nothing, intentional T or flagrant T.

OK, I misunderstood a false double. I will go back and read the rule. Thanks

Had this exact sitch last night. Partner gets the personal and then the T, but forgets that it's dead ball. He explains to both coaches that it's 2 shots for blue, then white ball at POI. I wasn't part of conversation, I was opposite the table observing the players. He comes over and tells me what he told the coaches, and I just asked, "Wasn't it dead ball contact?" The light goes on and he has to go back and tell the coaches that it's actually FTs for blue then blue ball. White coach wasn't happy. But we got it right.

It is a false double foul. For a false double foul, you administer the penalties for both fouls, in the order they happened. In this example, first the personal, then the (intentional) T.

Bob, the book states, "... when one of the fouls is a direct or indirect technical foul, point of interruption".

Yes. And this was neither a direct nor an indirect technical foul. This was an intentional technical foul.

Bob, from a scorekeeping point of view, though - an intentional technical foul counts as one of the two for disqualification, right?

As a practical matter, yes.

Bart, you're making this more difficult than it is, partner.

A false double foul is a situation where a foul occurs and the second foul occurs before the clock restarts.

4-26-12
A false double foul occurs when there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the game clock is started after it is stopped for the first but such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

All contact technical fouls are intentional, unless they are flagrant.

10-15-1
An intentional technical foul involves intentionally contacting an opponent in a non-flagrant manner when the ball is dead.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 06:10 PM]