Brawl in the BC/Duke game

[JugglingReferee]

LOL

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I would not have shot any FTs.

Your coach would have selected another player?

[drinkeii]

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

[Nevadaref]

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

Your coach would have selected another player?

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

[jbduke]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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?

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jbduke
[/B]

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.

[TussAgee11]

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!?

[jbduke]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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?

[drinkeii]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by jbduke

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?

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.
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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jbduke

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

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.

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.

[BigGref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

...Paulus started it- and then he came out of it smelling like a rose, penalty wise. Just doesn't seem right to me. [/B]

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!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

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.