Vill/FlaTech-Point of Interruption?
 

Midway through first half FLA fouled Villanova player, then a technical was called on Allen Ray of 'nova. Florida shot FT's but was then awarded the ball at the division line. I thought 'nova had the ball at the time of the foul and that they should have retained the ball at the "point of interruption".

I was at the game and wasn't able to see the replays. My only conclusion was that when the foul occurred, it was during a rebound and no team control existed. Hightower was very adamant about giving FLA the ball at the division ine.

Thoughts?

I didn't see it but it must have been dead ball intentional contact which is an intentional T.

Offended team gets 2 FTs + possession at the midcourt line.

It was called an Intentional T as Dan said...my only question is this: according to NCAA Men's rules, an Intentional T is a "contact" T during a dead ball...the T was called for Ray tossing the ball and hitting the Florida player in the head...does that qualify as "contact" under Men's rules?

I saw this as well and wondered why Nova didn't get the ball back. Thanks for educating me. THe original foul on the play was on the rebound. The Nova shooter missed the shot and the Floriday player shoved a Nova rebounder going for the ball.

Is that what happened? I would have called it that way too, throwing the ball at an opponent certainly qualifies as intentional. I guess that leaves it up to us to figure out what the definition of "contact" is...(cue Monika Lewinsky joke in 3...2... ;) )

I bet there's a clarification next year though.

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.

On the play in question, A1 was attempting a lay-up (which he missed) while A2 pushed B2 - whistle/foul on A2. A few seconds after the whistle, B3 held the ball out and dropped/pushed/bounced (what ever term you want to use) the ball off of A3's head (there was contact) - whistle/T.

The T was a dead-ball intentional. Although at the time, Team B would have received the ball out of bounds, the penalty (2shots + ball) was administered correctly - Team A ball. If it was a simple "f-bomb", then POI would have existed.

This is similar to the end of the Charlotte @ George Washington game several weeks ago. Remember that a foul was called on GW w/ about :05 seconds left and then a dead-ball contact technical foul (aka intentional) was called on Charlotte. GW got 2 shots (reduced 3pt defecit to 1pt) AND the ball back. A put-back of a missed GW shot just prior to the buzzer gave GW the 1pt win.

It's great to see the officials working the game (Hightower, Tom Eades, and Ed Corbett) apply the rules correctly in a big game. I will say that Hightower (as usual) was calling out of his area and got screwed up on a couple of rotations - but only his "officiating.com geeks" notice.

Actually, I think that it was B2 that pushed A2, whistle, Fould on B2. Then A3 bounced it off of B3's head.

[QUOTE=jeffpea]On the play in question, A1 was attempting a lay-up (which he missed) while A2 pushed B2 - whistle/foul on A2. A few seconds after the whistle, B3 held the ball out and dropped/pushed/bounced (what ever term you want to use) the ball off of A3's head (there was contact) - whistle/T.

The T was a dead-ball intentional. back. QUOTE]

So back to my question - how does tossing the ball off someone's head equal "contact" as the rule for an intentional T requires?

[QUOTE=rockyroad]The ball made contact with the dude's dome. What more do you need?

[QUOTE=Whistles & Stripes]You're right - the BALL made contact with the dude's dome...but Ray didn't make contact with the player. As I understand the rule, in order to be an Intentional T, there must be contact between the players...so shouldn't it have been a regular old garden variety Unsporting T? In which case possession would have been given to the team with the arrow which was Villanova, not given to Florida at half-court.

[QUOTE=rockyroad]Man, that ball didn't really jump up there and hit his dome by itself. And even if it was a "regular old garden variety unsporting T," why would you go to the arrow? I don't do college ball, so I'm really just requesting to be educated here. My limited understanding of the rules is that the garden variety T would result in 2 FTs by Florida, and then the ball being put back in play at the POI, which would be a baseline throw in for Nova because the Floriday player had been called for the pushing foul on the rebound.

[QUOTE=Whistles & Stripes]There was no team control during the rebound, so POI would be the arrow, I believe...I guess the point I am trying to make is that Florida should not have been given the ball at half-court, it should have been Nova's ball at the baseline...Nova coach had a point to his argument, IMO...

Rockyroad
 

You were right the 1st time about the POI--it would have been Nova's ball on the baseline because of the foul, not the arrow. It was Hightower's interpretation of intentional technical that put the ball at division line, one of the only situations that doesn't revert to POI. Another example would be a flagrant technical.

college rules
 

This is one rule that is different between men's and women's college. In women's it would simply have been POI. The time when the offended team keeps the ball as well on a T in women's is on an excessive timeout---POI in men's.

[QUOTE=rockyroad]OK, Rocky, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that we agree on this. However, I'm not sure. Why would POI be the arrow? The TECHNICAL foul did not occur during the rebound. The Technical foul occurred during the dead ball AFTER a foul was called during the rebound.

I guess what I'm thinking is this. Shove during rebound, whistle, foul. At this point, since the foul during the rebound was against Florida, the ball should then go to Nova on the baseline. Then, during the deadball, WHISTLE, Technical for dead ball contact. SOOO, if it WAS going to be POI, Florida would shoot their FTs, and then Nova would get the ball back on the baseline.

Am I wrong?