TH,
Do you know this for sure? If so, how? Were you at the game again today?

If that was the case, then I actually got it right in my post above. That's news. :)


Yes, but if both Ts had been the same type, would this have been a significant enough time span to dictate not going with the double? I would lean towards the double and no FTs in that case.

When I saw the actions of the players, I fully expected a double technical, with no foul shots.

Could the officials have ruled either (a) a false double technical, or (b) different types of technical fouls, so that foul shots were taken, in the hopes of sending a stronger message to keep that nonsense out of this game?

I gotta think that with points involved, teams should receive a stronger message. If you end up losing by 1, you would reflect more on the instigating or retaliating actions. I'd totally do this in an NFHS game. Is there a philosophy in the NCAA ranks as I have described?

Editted for grammar.

[Edited by JugglingReferee on Mar 12th, 2006 at 08:08 PM]

One more thing I have to add since I was at the game -

Redick was out of the game when the scuffle went on. But he then shot the free throws for Duke. Is this legal?

No, I was at the games yesterday, but not today.

In ACC country, the ESPN telecast is blocked out. We see the Raycom Sports presentation, which broadcasts ACC games here all season long. When you guys see an ACC game on Wednesday night, we see a doubleheader that premepts network programming. In any case, in that telecast, there was a mic at the table and we could hear referee Jamie Luck explain to the table what the calls were. Then PA announcer then repeated it.

Yes. Free throws awarded because of a technical foul may be attempted by any non-disqualified player.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigGref

Quote:

As far as the BC coach coming onto the floor, would this be a possible technical? Or did they "cough, cough" beckon the coach over to help. As far as NCAA rulings. THanks!

Are you "cough, cough" kidding? There wasn't any doubt in what Coach Skinner was doing, the official in front of the table assessed that situation correctly, IMO and allowed the coach to get his players to their bench area, without any further issues.

What exactly is a "contact technical foul"? Is that something defined in the NCAA rules?

I believe that contact is the difference between those "T"s in NCAA rules, David. They both are unsporting, but they have different penalties iirc. One is POI after FT's and the contact "T" is a throw-in at center.

I also believe that a "contact technical foul" is something that is defined under NFHS rules also- as in 4-19-5(c).

The rule book name is an intentional technical foul. It results from intentionally contacting an opponent during a dead ball. The foul counts as a personal on the player and results in 2 FTs and the ball at the division line.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BLydic

Quote:

Originally posted by BigGref Quote: As far as the BC coach coming onto the floor, would this be a possible technical? Or did they "cough, cough" beckon the coach over to help. As far as NCAA rulings. THanks! Are you "cough, cough" kidding? There wasn't any doubt in what Coach Skinner was doing, the official in front of the table assessed that situation correctly, IMO and allowed the coach to get his players to their bench area, without any further issues.

Just another Dook fan wandering by.... :D

Hmmmm.....

Let's see......NCAA rule 10-11-5 sez "Any team member <b>other than the head coach</b> who leaves the bench area <b>when a fight MAY break out</b> or has broken out <b>shall be ejected</b>".

It's looks like the BC "cough cough" coach was OK. Now.... iirc, it seems like there mighta been a few "cough cough" Duke players from the bench stick a toe out on the court though. That's supposed to be an automatic ejection.

What's your thoughts on that?

EDITED TO ADD:

Upon further review......

http://www.espn.go.com/

Click on the right to see the altercation. I can see 2 Duke subs off the bench <b>and</b> 3 Duke assistant coaches out on the court. Looks like there shoulda been 5 ejections right there if they hadda called it by the rule. :D

Thoughts now?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 12th, 2006 at 09:21 PM]

Nothing like hearing it straight from the Ref's mouth.
 

Awesome TH! Thanks for the great info. Of course, I'm feeling a little giddy right now for figuring this one out all on my own and posting it earlier. :) (Extending arm, bending elbow, patting self on back now :D )

Lemme see now.....Paulus took a coupla steps and whacked an opponent who not only had his back turned, but was walking away. Yup, I agree that Tinnant shouldn't have retaliated, but I can understand why he did. However, you can also make the case that Tinnant was protecting himself; he doesn't know what's going on- just that somebody smacked him from behind while he was walking away. Also, if my lip-reading is up-to-snuff (and it ain't bad), Paulus then threw an F-shot at Tinnant too.

Now, I realize that you look at the world only through Dook-covered glasses( :) ), but somehow having that play ending up getting evened out just didn't seem right to me. And I say that without having a horse in that particular race either. It kinda reminded me of good ol' Christian Laettner stomping on another player and only getting a "T" outa it. Do you think that was the best way that play coulda reasonably been handled too? Of course, I heard that Coach K did issue some supplemental punishment on that one. He did say "bad boy" to Laettner, I heard. :D

Seriously, JB, players are supposed to maintain some kind of control out there. Paulus sureasheck didn't on that play;maybe being a freshman has got something to do with that though. Paulus started it- and then he came out of it smelling like a rose, penalty wise. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Just a side note, and something that has got nuthin' to do with this discussion really...... I think that Al Skinner is one helluva class act. BC better hope that they can keep him for a while. He's a good 'un.

[/B][/QUOTE]

So you think that Paulus struck Tinnant intentionally?

So you think that Paulus struck Tinnant intentionally? [/B][/QUOTE]Nope, I think "recklessly" might be a better word. I also know that it's strictly the officials' judgment, and if they thought that he didn't strike Tinnant "intentionally", then Paulus couldn't be charged with a direct technical foul like Tinnant was. Of course, I also know too, after seeing the replay, that 2 Duke subs and 3 Duke assistant coaches came out onto the court during a possible fight. The rules afaik say that they shoulda all been tossed. Now......why weren't they?

Nope, I think "recklessly" might be a better word. I also know that it's strictly the officials' judgment, and if they thought that he didn't strike Tinnant "intentionally", then Paulus couldn't be charged with a direct technical foul like Tinnant was. Of course, I also know too, after seeing the replay, that 2 Duke subs and 3 Duke assistant coaches came out onto the court during a possible fight. The rules afaik say that they shoulda all been tossed. Now......why weren't they? [/B][/QUOTE]

Probably because (and you certainly know this) in order to make the ACC staff, you have to take a blood oath to Duke University generally and Coach K and his assistants, managers, and players particularly. There was never any doubt in my mind that Duke would come out smelling like a rose in this one, no matter how many people had come off the bench, and no matter what they'd done. In fact, I was cheering for the big bruiser, Jamal Boykin, to come off the bench and start throwing haymakers.

Or maybe it was because, of the Duke bench players who did set foot onto the playing area, only one (DeMarcus Nelson) was not actively trying to make sure no one entered the developing situation, and even he only managed to get one foot onto the court before backing off/being pulled back. And maybe I should send you one of my closetful of signed 8x10 glossies of Mike Krzyzewski ("To my absolute biggest fan ever; the shrine means a lot to me"), since you can't seem to remember what he looks like; because in addition to K, TWO, not three Duke assistants came off the bench, and both were engaged only in restraining their own team members.


If you want to be "that guy" here, go ahead. But I believe three things here: 1) the situation was managed perfectly by the officials, 2) if the roles and ends had been flipped, and two BC assistants and a couple of players had set foot slightly onto the floor in order to try to maintain peace and order, I wouldn't want folks being tossed left and right, 3) If #2 had been the case, you'd feel that everything had been handled just fine, but since it was Duke that violated the letter of the law but not the spirit, the crew should have been rulebook refs. Typical.

Oh, wait, let me guess: "You whitewashing everything Duke as you always do. Typical." Whatever.

Tony, how do you feel about how this situation was handled?