Techical Foul-Ejection
 

I was watching my son play a junior high game. Early in the game a shot goes up and the lead official stops the game calling a Technical Foul and Ejected a player for an elbow to the face.

I told the father that the only time I ever called this was when a punch was thrown (ejection).

After the game the father when to the official....calmly and asked what happened? The official said that the player (his son) elbowed the player in the face and that is an automatic ejection. The official said it was not intentional or flagrant and felt sorry about calling it, but any time this happens ejection automatic.

Now, I got out of officating BB about 2 years ago, after many years and told the father that I had never heard of anything like that, but I would ask the pros. So is this something that I missed over the years or is this something new since I got out of the game or something just made up?

Thank in advance.

Here's what you missed. Pay attention, it's important:

Never, never, never delude yourself into believing that as a former official you have the standing or the right to explain, justify, criticize, discuss, agree with, disagree with, or in any way comment on a call made by a floor official during a game. Your role is a fan, you have no standing whatsoever as an official. Being a former official grants you no special status. If you were a working official this behavior would lead to you being slapped down by your association. So just keep your yap shut. Got it? Yap. Shut.

That said, if this father came to me after a game to discuss what happened I would have walked past him without acknowledging his existence....except to game security, who would be told they need to take care of some jerk.

Hey,

I came to this formum to learn a rule that I have never seen before. If you can't or won't answer the question asked then keep your *** out of my post.

I'll try to answer your direct question. If you are asking if an elbow to the face is an automatic ejection according to NFHS rules, then no. There is no rule that an elbow to the face is an automatic ejection.

Relax Mr ex-official.

You asked a question, I answered it.

Sorry you don't agree with my answer. Also sorry you're so sensitive about being disapproved of in public. Maybe now you can understand how the real official in your son's game might have felt about you publicly disapproving his call.

Unless an elbow to the face is ruled flagrant (or facegaurding with the elbow :) ), it is neither a technical foul nor a flagrant technical foul.

Intentional foul maybe, but I know of no rule to support that officials explanation. Of course, I would have had to be there to comment any further.

Call off the hounds. Unless this guy has a history as a troll, I don't see that he deserves the business the way you are giving it to him.

You don't?

Ex-official explains during a game to fellow fans that the real official's call is not correct?

How often do you do this?

I have to admit that this statement above makes me suspicious. The reason is because you say you officiated basketball for "many years" and you don't seem to have a grasp on the confusion the official might have had between calling a technical foul and a flagrant foul. Had you worded the question something along the lines of "did the rules change with regard to flagrant fouls that aren't considered punches or fall within the definition of fighting," I could easily gather you did officiate for many years, as you are familiar with the rules here.

In other words, absent asking a SPECIFIC QUESTION about whether a rule has changed, you should know exactly what the official did and whether he was correct or incorrect.

The answer to your question is two-fold: 1) elbows to the face (or anywhere else) can easily be considered flagrant fouls and thus warrant a DQ (ejection in Fed rules are for coaches); 2) The official probably misspoke when saying the contact wasn't flagrant and that it was an automatic technical. He could have been inexperienced, read the rule wrong, been misinformed, or a number of other things. He could also have simply incorrectly stated what he did or what he called. I've done that before, usually when I'm thinking of something else while responding to someone.

Actually, you didn't. May I recommend something from our decaffinated selection?

I'm just sayin'.

Edited to include: Gotcha. I understand, but yikes!:o

You're absolutely right about that, and I'd never do it. Big taboo no-no. That aside, I think he approached the forum with a reasonable question, and while I understand that you wish to correct the errant behavior, it seemed a little harsh IMO. Sorta the proverbial lightning bolt out of the clear sky. No offense!

I didn't say it was an incorrect call I said I didn't know and would ask.

One more possibility. Shave Tail has it secondhand from the father what the ref said or didn't say. It probably got lost in translation.

Then we agree.

Thanks.

I would not be so harsh but if the elbow was intentional or considerd to be flagrent then I have a flagrent foul and automatic disqualification, two free throws and the ball.

"I told the father that the only time I ever called this was when a punch was thrown (ejection)."

So you said to your fellow fan that either

1. You've never understood the related rules or
2. The official on the floor doesn't understand the related rules.

(yeah yeah yeah you leave open the possibility that the rules might have changed since you actually did this officiating stuff...which means there's actually a third possibility: )

3. You have no idea what the rules are now.

So which is it? You criticized *your* understanding of the rules? You criticized *the official's* understanding of the rules? Or you pleaded ignorance about what you were about to tell your fellow fan?

In any event, as I said if you were an active official what you did would have opened you up to all sorts of grief from your association.

Well I really don't see the problem if he doesn't know, saying so, and finding out. If the father approaches the ref, which he should not, the ref has the right to explain or ignore him and continue on to the locker room or car or wherever he was going. If anyone tactfully approaches me I will happily explain the rule not my judgement. However, having said that I limit my contact with fans, players, and even coaches at games so that no perception of favortism is relayed. I have not had to much trouble with this. If I am a spectator I only discuss calls with other officials not the other spectators.

Dan ref,

You caught me, posing as an ex-official. There are you happy....I'll say anything to keep you from posting in the thread. Sort of like beating a confession out of an innocent person.

When I said I hadn't officiated in the last 2 years. It's because my daughter is in high school and my son is in JH.

And as far as being a fan now, I usually never comment on the officials.....except to defend them.

But the call and explaination was something I had never heard of and was asking for clarification on any rule changes.

Thanks to those helped me out.

i have never personally had a problem with a fan asking a question dependin on how they approach, how they ask and the type of setting. I dont discuss and I let them know its not a discussion but I will tell them the reason. This has maybe happened twice. I dont see why you have to jump to game management to get a jerk of your back if the father wanted to know what his son did and whether the son needs a talking to or not. And if the official said he thinks he got it wrong and maybe he was a bit harsh then the father -- if he is responsible -- might not have to chew jimmy out as bad as he thought.

why do we cluster ALL fans as jerks -- most yes but reading people body language and how they approach you can dictate intent and whether they will be civilized and just want to know What rather then What the #$%*

Gotta say, begging for mercy isn't usually the best way to argue your case.

Just so you understand, as an ex-official you should know not to discuss calls with fans. Keep your yap shut. Rule #1.

You didn't follow rule #1. Like it or not that's the case. You can paint it any way you like, but you criticized an official's call during a game using your standing as a former official. (Of course as I already explained you have no standing.)

And you're welcome, I am very glad I could straighten you out. We're all hoping you'll just keep your yap shut next time.

I've yet to have an actual punch throwin in one of my games, yet I've had to manage 6 ejections (not counting one particularly beligerent YMCA coach). First one was a bear-hug wrestling drop move responded to with an elbow to the stomach, and followed up by a third player running in to back up his teammate. It didn't matter what he did since he didn't actually direct his attention to his teammate. Bear hugger bought himself another T when he decided to tell the crowd he thought they were ranked #1.
Next was another bear-hug drop move and the ensuing elbow to the stomach. The only two I felt bad about where the two who were dropped and elbowed in response.
Next (three weeks ago) was a very hard shove. A 250 lb. forward nearly pushed a 150 lb. point guard through the floor boards stopping a layup.

Bottom line, a punch is hardly necessary for a flagrant foul, and a lot of refs will give an automatic ejection with an elbow to the face. I wouldn't, but we also don't know what this ref's association/assigner has told him.

Dan ref,

I have no idea where you get the notion that I was bad mouthing the officials. I didn't realize I had to be so detailed in my postings so I wouldn't hurt your feelings.

I was in the stands four or five rows above everyone else with my wife and daughter. The whistle blows....technical foul with an ejection. I lean over to my wife and said, "must have been a good one".

Later that night......after the game I'm waiting for my son in the hallway when my friend...the boys father and knows that I officiated basketball for a while comes up to me and said he had a chance to talk with the official and that he explains to dad that any elbow to the face is an automatic ejection. He asked if that is the rule.

I said I didn't think so. But since I've been out of the game for 2 years I would go ask and see if there has been any changes.


Earlier in one of you posts you said you would have walked right by him and ignored him.....with an attitude like that it's no wonder you have time for 7000+ posts.


I hope that this I not how you treat everyone who posts a legitimate question about the rules and only wanting to learn. And yes I said rules not a judgement call.

It's odd, after all your blah, blah posts you never did answer the question. But I quess it's alright, far better officials already did.

So I guess as far as my "yap" is concerned, I'll run it any time I feel like it.

End of post.

Dan's not saying he would have ignored the fan if he was you (well, maybe he would have), he's saying if he was the official who made the call and was questioned by the father, he would have ignored him and walked on.

1) He got the notion from your post. You were completely wrong in your understanding of the rule and your reaction when you responded to the father <b>during</b> the game. You basically told the father that a punch had to be thrown for ejection. That's wrong now and it was wrong 2 years ago when you gave up officiating. An elbow to the head is more often than not called flagrant if the calling official judged it to to be deliberately thrown. It's a deliberate <b>attempt</b> to injure and it deserves an ejection. A <b>missed</b> elbow could also be ruled flagrant if it led to as fight. Those are judgement calls, and what you were basically doing was second-guessing the judgement of the official on the floor <b>publically</b> BEFORE you had a chance to hear his explanation. Well, fan, that's OK because you are a fan. We expect no more or no less from most fans. For an official however, it's unprofessional and completely wrong- as Dan pointed out, and will usually get you suspended if you're caught doing something like that. It will certainly earn you the enmity of your fellow officials. And....an ex-official should really know better anyway not to comment when he didn't know why the call was made. Apparently, you didn't understand that- unfortunately- but that's OK as long as you <b>stay</b> an ex-official.

2) We train our officials to walk right by fans at the end of games, without saying anything or responding to them. Most officials associations do the same afaik. No good can ever come from by-play with the spectators after a game, especially with a father who has just seen his son ejected. That's an invitation to disaster. It's not an attitude; it's common sense. Too many of our fellow officials have been assaulted after games following incidents exactly like the one you detailed. After the game, you get away from the fans and you <b>stay</b> away from the fans. End of story.

That's how it is, shave-tail, like it or not.

We cluster all fans as jerks because if you don't, you have a good chance of becoming part of the statistics of sports officials who have been assaulted. Be Mr. Nice Guy if you want. Just know that you're taking your chances by doing so.

I realize I may take the heat off of shave-tail and put it on myself, but besides Dan who has made his position very clear, how does everyone feel about explaining rules to fellow fans (rules and their interpretations, not judgement calls)?

In my case, I limit my discussions to family and friends (not just some run of the mill fan) and always limit my discussion of any play to the rules as written. For example, during football season, I attended my old HS's homecoming game with my bestfriend and our wives and a question of the requirement to have 7 men on the LOS was posed to me by my best friend. Our old HS had been flagged multiple times for not having enough men on the line, and he asked if that was the right call. I simply explained that there must be 7 on the line, and that requirement wasn't being met. He didn't realize why (because they don't announce numbers, he was looking at WR's and TE's) and pressed the issue, so I began watching the linemen a little closer and caught the Tackle lining up in the backfield. I pointed this out before the play began and explained that aspect of the rule to my friend and how the rule stipulates whether or not a lineman is on the line or not. Sure enough out came a flag. I never questioned the officials judgement (obviously because I agreed, but had I not agreed and been asked, I would have fallen back on the old "the on-field official is in much better position to observe this" routine and kept my personal opinion to myself).

I find a football example easier to go with because in basketball I find most "rules" questions from friends or family are actually "was that really a foul" question, in which case I say it was a foul and my F&F know not even to ask. I've explained the AP issue where the arrow doesn't change because of a violation or foul before the AP throw-in is over, but again only in terms of B fouled A before the throw-in was complete A keeps the arrow and not the foul itself.

I know long post, but how many would deem even a discussion in this manner to be not appropriate?

In the 2002-03 season the NFHS changed the penalty for excessively swinging one's arms/elbows from a technical foul to a violation.
In the rules book for that same year under Point of Emphasis #4 Rough Play the NFHS wrote the following:
Excess Swinging of Arm(s)/Elbow(s)
-When there is no contact with an opponent is now a violation.
-If contact is made, the official must judge the severity of the act and possibly even determine intent.
-A player control foul, an intentional foul or a flagrant foul may be called.

(All of these fouls listed would be PERSONAL fouls if the contact occurred during a live ball, as was the case in your situation. So if the official called a technical foul, he goofed that part. However, a flagrant personal foul that carries a disqualification as part of the penalty certainly is a possibility on this play. That is up to the judgment of the calling official. [If the contact occurred during a dead ball then the type of foul would be technical.])

This is still the current rule for NFHS games.

We did say this was a junior high game right...maybe the guy working the game is new and doesn't know all the rules. We all made mistakes when we were just starting out and possibly another official told him that this act is an automatic ejection. With that said maybe it would have been more proper for you to talk to the official after the game and use this as a learning experience and help him out. But, Dan Ref is right, you need to watch what you say and do as a fan when people around you know you are an official or an ex-official.

Dan Ref and Shave-Tail,

Why don’t you guys go out back and settle this like men...Rock, Paper, Scissors...two out of three!

I don't talk to fans after games, most fans ARE NOT jerks, when I'm in the stands I never comment to a fan about a call on the court unless it's in the course of telling the fan to STFU :D , Dan needs to take a Midol.

Saw this last week
 

Before I tell my little story I want to make sure I have this right.

Player A throws elbow to face of Player B. I tweet . I have an intentional foul that I deem flagrant. Junior is then DQ. I know there are other options but I want to make sure this option could be a correct option ....

I saw this happen. Boys Jv tourney .Two rivals from pretty decent programs. So for JV teams they have it going on. player A ,during a live ball, throws elbow into face of player B. Nice solid contact. Refs call a personal foul-ball on the sideline. About 2 minutes later Player A throws another elbow and makes contact again. They tweet and give a technical. And then Player A goes on to be a major problem child the rest of the game.....

IMO the first elbow thrown and subsequent contact was so far beyond the line that the kid needed to be sitting down for the rest of the night.

Are this many officials really calling technical fouls for contact during live ball?

Believe It or not
 

I gave this sitch to one of our higher ups and he told me you can call a technical foul on anyone at anytime. I filed this in my "I don't think so file ".

Yes, Dan should check out the great taste of decaf. Yes, Dan needs a Midol. While I agree that officials -- and probably ex-officials -- should not berate other officials on the floor, if somebody asks you "is that the rule?", your options are limited. Lie, answer the question honestly and diplomatically, or feign death until the other person leaves. I respectfully opt for the honest and diplomatic approach.

Having said that, in answer to the original question of whether an elbow to the head is an automatic ejection, I believe that the NBA has a rule that is close to that. Maybe the official works some pro-am ball and got confused.

Sure, if you call it unsportsmanlike.

1) Wrong concept. You can have an intentional foul that is either personal or technical in nature. Rule 4-19-3. You can have a flagrant foul that is either personal or technical in nature. Rule 4-19-4. There is <b>no</b> such beast as an intentional flagrant foul, either personal or technical. It's true, it's true....

2) If the contact occurred during a live ball, it can <b>never</b> be called a technical foul. The 4 options on the elbow call are a player or team control foul(dependant on whether the elbower was holding or dribbling the ball at the time of the elbow), an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul.

WTF?

From my understanding, here is the order of events.

a.) Foul and ejection are called- no bad mouthing of official.

b.) Game ends. A good amount of time after the game is over, parent of ejected player (who may not have even seen the play), politely asks official for an explanation of what happened.

c.) The official, good guy that he is, gives his interpretation to the parent. (Which he is under NO obligation to do.) Part of his explanation is the foul was not flagrant, but an elbow to the face is an automatic ejection.

d.) The parent, having a friend who he knows has officiating experience, asks if that is a correct interpretation of the rule. (Which it is NOT- there is certainly a ton of reasoning to call this a flagrant foul, but if the official did not believe it was a flagrant act -which is what he said- he should not have ejected the player.)

e.) Shave-tail says he does not believe the interpretation is correct, but he is not 100% sure, so he will get on the internets, where you can find the answer to anything, because there is a message board with officials opinions that he respects.

f.) Said officials flame him for three pages for being critical of the official.

Nice.

Say what? You can call a technical foul for unsportsmanlike <b>CONTACT</b> during a live ball? You know better than that, Scrappy.

I didn't say that. But an unsportsmanlike foul is always technical, regardless of when it occurs, live ball or dead. So the mentor was right. A technical foul can be on anyone at any time. That was my only point.

During a live ball, what contact is there that you would cal a T for?

Go back and read the first post again. And try comprehending it this time. Shave-tail told the father <b>during</b> the game that you could only toss somebody if a punch was thrown. At that time, shave-tail didn't have a clue what the actual call was; he was just, plain and simple, second-guessing the official with no actual knowledge of what the call was. Shave-tails statement to the father <b>during</b> the game was also completely wrong, by rule also.

That's why shave-tail got flamed. That's why if shave-tail was an official, shave-tail woulda been in deep doo-doo if he had been caught doing that.

Most officials are aware of that.

None. You're missing my point. Somebody said that he'd been told that you can call a T on anyone at any time. He filed that in the "yeah, right" file. My only point is that you CAN call a T on anybody at any time. Even during a live ball if the foul is unsportsmanlike in nature.

Sorry for confusing everyone by stating the obvious! :)

Scrappy, go back and read Chess Ref's post at 9:27am. He was responding to Tomegun's specific inquiry asking if a technical foul could be called for <b>live ball contact</b>. Chess Ref's answer was that his "higher-up" said that you can call a technical foul on anyone at any time. That statement is wrong. You can't call a technical foul for live-ball contact. Sez so right in the rules.

If you don't believe me, find an IAABO interpreter and ask him.

I understand I just wanted to make the point that any contact that is made during a live ball is not classified under the T foul provision, no matter how severe or if you feel it is unsporting. Even fighting is classified as flagrant fouls which carry DQ but is not a T.

Coupla things here Scappy.

1. In my experience when I'm sitting with the fannies and am asked my opinion on something that happened on the floor there is only 1 answer that immediately ends the conversation:

"Sorry friend, I wasn't looking. I have no idea what just happened."

2. As we all know "automatic" is not just a rule book term. There are some things that result in "automatic" calls. Not found in the rule book but just as valid. While I don't agree necesarily that it's a good thing to have "automatic" calls in your bag of tricks, it might be that this official referee'ing a JH contest might have been told by a mentor that elbows to the head are automatic ejections.

Since the OP keeps changing his story I suppose we'll never know what actually happened.

edit...

and btw, decaf will give you cancer. It's true, I read it on the internet.

Since I struggle with reading comprehension, can you please indicate to me where it specifies in the OP that shave-tail made any statements about the call during the game.

You are incorrect. The higher-up's statement is correct. Anyone can be charged with an unsporting technical foul at any time during the officials' jurisdiction.

But that's NOT what Chess Ref's higher-up said, according to Chess Ref's post. The higher-up made no reference to live ball contact in Chess Ref's post. That was my only point. I didn't want somebody to come in and see that and think, "oh, there are times in the game where I can't call a technical foul?". Of course you can, if it's an unsporting foul.

Again, sorry for confusing you with the obvious. I know what he was getting at and you know what he was getting at. But that doesn't mean that everybody will get it.

You CAN call a technical foul on anyone at anytime during the officials' jurisdiction, if it's an unsporting foul.

I'm only posting as a fact-checker, no opinion is offered than it appeared the original post was using a chronological format:

The OP- for lpneck.

'Nuff said.

We're on the same page, ArmyDude. :)

Wow, I had to quote myself! :)

I have been reading (on this board) and listening (in my local area) about officials calling technical fouls on contact during live balls. So my question was asking if this is happening a lot. I ask that because it shouldn't be! We are talking about contact during a live ball. Please don't muddy the waters by adding unsportsmanlike act into the equation. Make your own equation for that!

You choose option 1: lie. I choose option 2. I say tomato, you say STFU.

Also, part of the consideration is that when I sit in the stands to watch a game, I am almost never just sitting with fans that I don't know. I'm with other refs or with friends. So I find it harder to lie to those folks. I know they know I know the rules, so they naturally ask me for clarifications. I don't think I've ever been asked by a complete stranger for a rules interp while sitting in the stands.

Lah me, Scrappy. Chess Ref was <b>responding</b> to Tomegun's very <b>specific</b> question about live-ball contact being a technical foul. That's what Chess Ref asked his higher-up....i.e. "if live-ball contact could be a technical foul". The higher-up's reply to that very <b>specific</b> question was that you could call a technical foul on anybody at any time. Nobody ever mentioned an "unsporting foul" at any time but <b>YOU</b>! Not Chess Ref and not his higher-up. That's the point I'm trying to make. Chess Ref's higher-up is wrong.

You really need to switch from decaf to a <b>man's</b> coffee, like Dan. Might open your eyes.:D

Ahhh...a philosophical discussion in which you take the part of the absolutist. I love those...why don't you take an absolutist whack at this:

You find it hard to lie to friends and family? How old was your daughter when she stumbled onto the cold hard truth that there really is no Santa Claus?

Yabut.....<b>we</b> don't know that.

Another hanging curveball, Dan.:D

There is no Santa Claus?:eek:

http://www.1000smilies.com/animated/crying.gif

Been watching Everybody Loves Raymond?

Let me answer this way:

Not EVERYBODY loves Raymond. :rolleyes:

But this discussion about telling everybody the exact truth was just on, including the part about telling the daughter about Santa. Thought maybe you were, uh, borrowing...

Damn, now I realize why I have a self-esteem problem, I thought I WAS universally loved. :(

As you know I have no objection to, as you put it, borrowing, from other sources.

But I do not watch that unfunny annoying Raymond thing.

Dan, now you've done it. You've gone and made the Jurassic one cry.

"According to Jim," now there's some funny comedy.

:D

Nice.

If the live ball act (an elbow to the insert-body-part-here) was deemed to be "fighting" by the official, would it not be a (flagrant) technical foul?

10-3-9 Player Techincal - A player shall not: Be charged with fighting.

4-18 Fighting - Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

And doesn't this contradict 4-19-4?

4-19-4 A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

If it's fighting during live ball action, call it a flagrant personal. The question is, with a flagrant personal and a flagrant technical, can you offset the penalties and not shoot the free throws?

Fine, you know that's what he was talking about and I know that's what he was talking about, but Chess Ref didn't say in his post that's what he was talking about.

You and I both know the relevant rules. I'm not arguing with you over the rule. I am simply pointing out that an official CAN call a technical foul on anybody at anytime. I am simply pointing that out for the 2% of people that might stroll through this thread and NOT understand what you and I know about the situation.

When taken at their face value, the way they are presented in Chess Ref's post, the words spoken by the higher-up are true. When applied ONLY to the more narrow context of live ball contact (which was NOT done in Chess Ref's post), then we can say that you can't assess a technical foul for that particular infraction. You can still give a T, but not for that particular infraction.

Methinks that if the flagrant personal and flagrant techincal were the two parts of a double foul, than we would go to POI. If they were the two parts of a false double foul, than we would shoot free throws, however accordingly.
Yes?

I don't think I took that part. There are several options. I listed the relevant ones that I could think of. Your response fit quite naturally (without any help from me) into option 1. Are there options that I didn't list?

You may laugh at this, but I had a really hard time perpetuating the Santa thing. My wife really loved how excited my daughter would get, so I went along; but I really didn't like it and I didn't participate in it. In fact, I would take my daughter with me to pick out my wife's stocking gifts. This made my wife mad, but it was my attempt at being honest, as far as I could.

I'm not, and I never have (knock-knock on the desk), but I would for a live ball act of fighting or contact by a non-player (i.e. recent threads talking about a member of bench personnel intentionally interfering by contacting a player).

I'm talking specifically about a flagrant personal (he's starting a fight while the ball is live) and the flagrant T for fighting back.

"Me thinks danref protests too much"....The overly strong initial response from him suggests a sich that happened to him once as the floor official--a possible public comment from a fellow official that showed him up (ala his "Rule #1")--a HTBT, I guess...
He is right that a fellow ref never comments negatively on anothers actions, but an ex-ref is just another "fan", and I dont listen to fans, so say all you want, you bought a ticket....
And as an official watching as a fan, if asked a Q from friends or family, I answer it. BFD if someone else doesnt like it- - the world hasnt ended. Maybe decaf is the answer.....

Then part two of my answer - a simple, yet slightly more complicated than the typical, false double foul. Shoot 'em up, however accordingly.

Simple scenario, A1 gets the ball stolen by B1. A1 is having a bad night and yells "You F***ing Su*k" towards B1 loud enough for you to hear.

1. What would the proper call be?
2. Could this be an unsporting technical during a live-ball?
3. What is the penalty?

Not trying to prove a point, I'm just trying to further my education. This whole discussion just raised some questions.

I'll sit down and be quiet now.

Thanks

This would be an unsporting tech but there is no contact in this situation.

Wait for the layup if it's a fast break by B, delayed USC technical foul on A1. I believe there's case support for the delayed call in this one, but I'm out the door to get some pants tailored.

That's interesting. While you state

"You choose option 1: lie. I choose option 2. I say tomato, you say STFU."

we should still assume your argument does not exclude the possibility that a near-infinite number of other options *might* exist and are available for subsequent rebuttal. Very interesting...the "I voted for the funding before I voted against it" school. Should I file this under the heading of "honesty" or merely "intellectually lazy"?

You may laugh at this, but used to be when a fan would innocently ask me what I thought of a call I really, really tried and help them out by explaining the intricacies involved. But that just made them mad, so my attempt at being honest, as far as I could, devolved to "Sorry friend, I wasn't looking. I have no idea what just happened."

Of course your brand of honesty is so much cleaner than mine, isn't it?

Yes, thanks tomegun. It DOES seem to be happening alot- and even recently happened in a Division 1 game I posted about in another thread. Im glad some here clarified the statements about being able to call a T at anytime- because it confused me at first (again)! :)

Somewhere along the lines, some people seem to have learned that flagrant contact equals a technical foul...

It is so hard to UNLEARN, huh? ;)

Me thinks among some of our forum vets that the T signal would be followed by a mechanic often utilized by baseball umpires.

I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Neither. What are some of the other nearly infinite options? I can think of 3 obvious ones that are reasonable options:

1) Respond by lying. (This could be by saying that the official got it right; or by saying that you don't know; or by saying that you didn't see it when you did see it.)

2) Respond truthfully. (This could be by explaining the rule; or by saying that you don't like to discuss rules with fans; or by saying that you didn't see it when you actually didn't.)

3) Do not respond and simply ignore the question. (Feign death, in "Far Side" terms.)

Of course there are other options, like punching out the questioner or changing seats to avoid answering or farting in his general direction. But those seem not to be reasonable choices. So if I've been intellectually lazy, what are my other reasonable, nearly infinite, choices?

A lot of teen-age boys would disagree with this assessment.

Why do you assume "I didn't see it" is absolutely a lie?

In fact "I didn't see it" is exactly the truth. Only the calling official knows what he did see or didn't see to cause him to blow or not blow the whistle.

Why do you assume "I have no idea what's going on" is an absolute lie?

In fact only the calling official know's why he did or did not blow the whistle.

And finally...which of your 3 categories does making your daughter shop for her mom's Chritmas gift to avoid telling her the absolute truth about Santa Claus fall into?

Lie? Truth? Feigning death?

Can't we all just learn the subtleties of being disingenuous?

The trick is to learn the art of "defining" terms. Ms. Manners says that all brides and all babies are by definition beautiful. It's not lying to tell your boss, your sister or your next-door neighbor's cousin that their baby is beautiful, even if both the babies eyes are different colors and her nose has a huge pimple on one side (ditto any bride). It's not a lie because by definition of being a baby, or a bride that person is beautiful. It's a very useful skill.

I prefer to think of it as creative truth telling.

Some prefer to live by the notion that truth defines a universal absolute and inflexible reality...(except when their daughters or certain embarrasing senate votes are involved of course...edit to include ugly brides and malformed babies)

Ms. Manners can bite me.

However, you cannot call an unsporting foul for a play involving contact. That's just the definition. So I have to disagree with you.

4-19-14 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.