The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 27, 2006, 02:34pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco
I'm not familiar with the NCAA rulebook, and I was wondering if there is an indirect technical on a player in NCAA? Would the player who dunked the ball and got two Ts be disqualified?
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 27, 2006, 03:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There is a similar ruling by the NFHS which says that only one T should be assessed. When I read this I thought, "What happened to the T for hanging on the rim?" Needless to say, I'm not fond of this ruling, but it is what it is.
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!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 27, 2006, 03:54pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And for Bob and JR, just leave it alone and let's see where this goes!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 27, 2006, 05:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco
I'm not familiar with the NCAA rulebook, and I was wondering if there is an indirect technical on a player in NCAA? Would the player who dunked the ball and got two Ts be disqualified?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 07:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
NV, you're always here when we don't want your input...where are you now?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
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!
They are listed as two separate offenses in the rules book.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 02:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 03:07pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
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?
From wikipedia.com:

Quote:
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.
Put me down for the intentional foul only.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 03:12pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Put me down for the intentional foul only.
You're wise beyond your years. You must be a Yankees fan.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
From wikipedia.com:
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.
What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?

On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 03:44pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
"...competing solutions are equal...?"

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

I can't.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 04:02pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 04:03pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

I can't.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 28, 2006, 05:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
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?
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!
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grasping the rim during play zebraman Basketball 12 Thu Jun 24, 2004 08:30pm
grasping the rim Dibbs Basketball 6 Tue Dec 24, 2002 10:02pm
Grasping The Ring APHP Basketball 25 Tue Sep 10, 2002 02:22pm
Grasping the Ring Mike Burns Basketball 3 Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:32pm
Grasping the "Basket" rainmaker Basketball 10 Tue Jan 08, 2002 03:48am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1