LOL

I thought the officials aren't supposed to get involved.

I am somewhat confused by the administration. Both players received Ts, but they obviously didn't deem it a double technical foul since BC shot 2 then Duke shot 2.

I would not have shot any FTs.

Your coach would have selected another player?

So what was the foul(s) called? False double technical? Why did they shoot?

Funny thing: announcer says they didn't call technicals, they just called it unsportsmanlike. I don't remember this one in the rules as not a technical. Must be like the whole "reaching" foul they have for announcers...haha

FTs were attempted, so Ts were definitely charged. I have to assume that the actions were deemed a false double technical foul.

Having watched the play numerous times on replay, I don't concur with that decision. A double tech was the obvious call. Duke #3 made contact with BC #11 and he responed by shoving Duke #3. Why the false?

Not when I played baby! This was one of the few times that I would get into the game. :)

If you don't think that this situation fits the defintion of the false double technical, well, then, wow.

You answered your own question. If the narrative of two unsporting events includes the word "then," then it's a false double, and both teams shoot. Where's the problem?

You answered your own question. If the narrative of two unsporting events includes the word "then," then it's a false double, and both teams shoot. Where's the problem?

[/B][/QUOTE]The problem is that the instigator got away with the same punishment as the retaliator.

The announcers were confused because the PA guy said that there was "unsportsmanlike foul". The T's were assessed after Greg Paulus for Duke made a nice play and threw the ball off a BC player's leg. Then Duke, after the FTs, they inbounded the ball at half court. Obviously they were false double T's, but does that affect where the ball is inbounded? Seems to me it should have been taken out at POI in the corner, because they weren't double technicals?

Help!?

The problem is that the instigator got away with the same punishment as the retaliator. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,

Not trying to stir the pot, just curious as to what you think just administration would have been. Paulus accidently hit Tinnant as he was celebrating his defensive play. Tinnant understandably retaliated, shoving Paulus in the head. I think that the way they handled it was the best they could have reasonably done for the game. Do you disagree?

Another consideration - in most games, when one person instigates, or hits, and another hits back, in that short of a time span, most officials call the double T. Rarely do they do it as an if/then type scenario. Why did they choose to do that in this case?

When you think about it, most cases of a double T are if/then... for two players to swing at each other at exactly (or roughly) the same moment, shove at the same moment, or trash talk at each other (as opposed to an action/reaction) is almost completely unlikely.

Perhaps they ruled a bit differently.
 

Here's what I believed both of the players were charged with:
Art. 7. (Men) Intentional technical foul. An intentional technical foul involves intentionally contacting an opponent in a non-flagrant manner when the ball is dead.

Which carries this penalty:
Section 16. (Men) Penalty for Intentional Technical Fouls
Art. 1. The penalty for an intentional technical foul shall be two free throws awarded to a player of the offended team and possession of the ball to the offended team at a designated spot at the division line.
Art. 2. The offender shall not be ejected.
Art. 3. A combination of one intentional technical foul with two indirect technical fouls (see Rules 10-3.8 through 10-3.19) and with one direct technical foul shall result in the ejection of the offender.
Art. 4. An intentional technical foul shall count toward a player’s five fouls for disqualification and toward the team-foul total.
Art. 5. When double intentional technical fouls are committed, no free throws shall be awarded.
Art. 6. The offenders in a double intentional technical foul shall not be ejected.
Art. 7. After a double intentional technical foul, the ball shall be put in play at the point of interruption.




Here are the definitions that we are discussing:
Art. 11. Double technical foul. A double technical foul occurs when opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Art. 12. False double foul. 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.

To me the definition in article 11 is a better fit.

However, while combing the rules book, another idea came to me. Perhaps only the Boston College player was charged with an Intentional technical foul and the Duke player was only charged with a direct technical foul for unsporting conduct. His reaction to the play may have been deemed such, but there was no intent to contact the opposing player.

In that case, it seems that the following clip governs.

f. In the case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul shall carry its own penalty. When one of the fouls is a direct or indirect technical foul, the ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption.
<font color = blue>1. When one of the fouls is a single (men) intentional technical foul or a single flagrant technical foul, the penalties shall be administered in the order of occurrence and the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at the division line on either side of the playing court.</font>

This is now my best guess of how the game officials ruled on the play. It is certainly valid to see the players' actions in that manner.

JR,

Not trying to stir the pot, just curious as to what you think just administration would have been. Paulus accidently hit Tinnant as he was celebrating his defensive play. Tinnant understandably retaliated, shoving Paulus in the head. I think that the way they handled it was the best they could have reasonably done for the game. Do you disagree? [/B][/QUOTE]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.

I don't think that Paulus got off "scott free" (alternate idiom to smelling like a rose) he got the same penalty (when you get down to it) and I thought this situation was dealt with correctly. As they said on the telecast Paulus was football player and reacted very much like it.

As far as the officials getting pretty physical in seperating the players, I think it becomes more necessary when it is in front of a teams bench, due to the higher likelihood of players coming onto the court.

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!

Two different types of technical fouls were called.

An unsporting technical was called on Paulus.

A contact technical foul was called on Hinnant.

One foul clearly occurred after the other.

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?

Give it a break, fanboy. You're just getting ridiculous now. I almost thought that you were starting to become half-way logical and reasonable lately when it came to discussing something. I was wrong. You're just another mindless fanboy wandering through. You haven't changed a bit.

The game's over. Dook rulez. Nobody really gives a sh!t anymore. Go find a Dook fanboy site some place; you'll find all kinds of people there just like you to agree with everything you say, and are quite willing to discuss how great Dook really is.

It doesn't matter what school you're a fanboy of, jb.; all of you fanboys are the same anyway.

Come back and join us when you mature a little.

And under a new name which might be a little less fanboyish.

Interesting bio on Al Skinner. Did not know he played in the ABA. http://bceagles.collegesports.com/sp...nner_al00.html

They should have ejected all the players for both teams, declared a double forfiet and brought Wake and Carolina back to play the championship today. :D

__________________________________________

I haven't read yours and JR's discussion, so I don't know who I'm agreeing with. But I had no problem with the way they handled it. I don't think Paulus meant to contact Tinnant but the fact is that he did. I thought the Duke bench did a good job of controlling their players and the BC coach did a good job of getting down there and taking care of business.

JB, can you tell me the last time (if ever) something happened out of the ordinary in a Duke game and it didn't go Duke's way? I'm not saying it hasn't; I just want to know if you can tell me when it did.

I know one official who made some big calls at the end of a game against Duke and I raised my eyebrows. I called him the next day and told him I thought he did a good job, not because it went against Duke, but because it was the right call and some officials wouldn't have made the call.

I was thinking, it seems like Duke has almost become college basketball's "America's team" like the Cowboys and Braves. At least the Cowboys have 5 Super Bowls. :D

Did anyone see the official in lead? He missed the whole incident because he was pointing and trying to get the ball back. It's a good idea to keep an eye on the players after a hustle play like that to make sure this exact situation doesn't occur. C & T did a good job of getting in there quick. This is a good example to less experienced officials that haven't had this type of situation happen in their games. I learned this the hard way and it made me officiate a lot harder during dead ball periods!

Tony, I really wish you would read the discussion
, since you're in the unique position of being a knowledgeable official, follower, and UNC guy.

UNC deserves way better than having to face Michigan State in the second round, by the way. Worst seeding ever.

You want to let me know where I strayed into total nonsense, or do you just want to namecall, oh wise one?

tom,

Just wanted to let you know that when I have some time tonight, I'll compose a serious response to your serious, legitimate question.

John

You want to let me know where I strayed into total nonsense, or do you just want to namecall, oh wise one? [/B][/QUOTE]You're just a fanboy, fanboy. That basically says it all.

I really could care less about fanboys- any fanboys- one way or another.