[quote=Whistles & Stripes]You have the correct understanding.

I expect to see a clarification from the NCAA on this soon, certainly before next season.

I would not have deemed this "contact" to meet the definiton of an intentional technical foul. I would have gone with an unsporting T and resumed at the POI.

We'll have to wait and see what the NCAA says.

[QUOTE=Whistles & Stripes]No, you're not wrong. I seem to have forgotten the small fact that a rebounding foul had been called first...duh! And so we do agree - Nova should have gotten the ball...like Nevada said, I don't understand why it was called an Intentional T.

it was probably called intentional because he intentionally threw the ball and hit him in the head.....i think he lost his cool, so he cost his team 2 ft's and lost the ball....maybe he will keep his cool next time!!!! i thought it was a good interpratation of the rule... but that is just me.. i can see it both ways, but i would of went with this one.... i do hope they make a clarification before next season...

guys - lets not split hairs here. There was contact made on the kids head by virtue of the ball being thrown/dropped by the Nova player. I don't think I would like to explain to Hank Nichols (NCAA Supervisor of Officials) that the contact "wasn't really contact because it was from a ball not a hand".

If he hit the kid with a water bottle, towel, clipboard, or chair - would you still argue that there is no "contact" because it didn't occur with a hand?

It was the right call to make - dead ball/contact T = intentional T; 2 shots + ball.

Clipboard, Chair = flagrant tech

Water bottle, depending on velocity = flagrant tech

Towel = ???

Ball dropped on prone player's head = probably not the first time this has occurred in the careers of Ed Corbett, Ed Hightower, Tom Eades. Maybe based on their collective experiences as officials they determined the best way to handle it was to call it an intentional contact technical.

See Jurrassic, i do sometimes give the benefit of the doubt to officials. :)

That "splitting hairs" is exactly why the rules committee put the Intentional Technical foul in the book, because shoving someone requires more of a penalty than just calling them a bad name...however, there was no "contact" in that situation...to use your rationale, if you go up for a shot and I (with my massively impressive vertical leap of 16 inches) block the ball cleanly, but the ball then bounces off your noggin, the ref would have to call a foul because there was "contact"...nope - not buying that.

apples and oranges, rockyroad....stay on task here......

let's reveiw: whistle blows to stop play; Nova player picks ball up and starts to mouth off to Gator player; picks ball up - palms ball in right hand and extends arm towards Gator player; takes two steps forward to Gator player; gently throws/drops ball on Gator players head before he turns and walks away.

Can we both agree that is an accurate summary of what happened?

Which of the Nova players' actions (as described above) were NOT intentional? The contact made by throwing/dropping the ball on the kids head was clearly intentional.

To use your inaccurate rationale, I can argue that if the Nova player kicked the Gator player, there really wasn't contact - afterall it was the shoe (not the actual foot) that made contact.

C'mon - I think reasonable people can agree that a physical act by the Nova player resulted in contact w/ the Gator during a dead ball.

Nope, nope, nope...you're wrong and I'm right. That's just the way it is...

Seriously, I really didn't have that big a problem with the original call. Just bothers me that the rule requires contact and ,regardless of what semantics might be brought in, there was no contact...did the penalty fit the offense - yes, just don't think it was handled properly by rule. As far as the game management aspect of it, it was perfect...

I realize that I am not always right (as hard as it is to accept that....). I just think that you have to work pretty hard to argue/justify that contact did not occur in this situation. This play and the Intentional T (dead ball + contact) given to a Charlotte player near the end of their game vs. George Washington (3/4) and they way each was administered was certainly a learning exprience for me. I know I'll be ready for this situation if it occurs next year!

OK, lets say the nova player keeps the ball palmed in his hand and uses it to whack the player with. Does this change the "contact" argument at all?