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?

[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?