Yes, there are indirect T's in NCAA. An example would be the one in the OP where the player smacked the backboard after dunking the ball.

So do you view these this as one single act or two separate acts that both require penalizing?

And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes! :)

:D <i></i>

The player would not be disqualified. It would take a 3rd indirect (that falls under 10-3.8 thru 10-3.19) or a direct technical.

NV, you're always here when we don't want your input...where are you now? :D

They are listed as two separate offenses in the rules book.

Thank you.

New situation.

Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one?

BTW, I'm not setting you up. Some believe that these are two distinct issues and others believe they are penzlized as one act. What do you think?

From wikipedia.com:

Put me down for the intentional foul only.

You're wise beyond your years. You must be a Yankees fan.

What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book? :p

On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate? :eek:

It's not, obviously. But unless I get something pretty explicit from the NFHS that says to call both, I think the competing solutions are equal. So I choose the simpler one.

"...competing solutions are equal...?" :confused:

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

I can't.

Nope. But I simply don't believe the intent of the rule is penalize twice for basically the same act. Yes, you could read the rules that way. I understand that. But unless I see a case play or clarification from the NFHS, I just don't think that's the way it's supposed to be called.

I realize that we call the intentional foul AND issue the warning if a defender contacts the inbounder before a delay warning has been given. But I don't think that's to penalize 2 acts; I think that's so that we have justification to call the T next time he breaks the plane without contacting anything. He doesn't get a free pass to jump across the plane next time, just because he whacked the inbounder this time.

I can. Rule 9-2PENALTY4. T'aint no mention of a technical foul anywhere in there that I can see. One act--->one penalty.

Still going around in circles, aren't we?

I saw the other thread on this and it made me think for a while. I happen to agree with you and think that the team should be punished for both acts that it committed. Perhaps that will worry you and make you change your mind! :eek:
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFHS issued a ruling with similar logic to the one above regarding dunking a dead ball and then grasping the ring in which they state that only the intentional foul shall be called.
In any event my personal opinion doesn't mean squat when put up against an official NFHS ruling.