Pac-10 T right or wrong?
 

At 6:51 of the 1st half Washington's Quicy Pondexter was charged with a technical foul for pushing an ASU player during the dead ball following an ASU foul which warranted a 1-1.
It seems to me that this has to be an intentional technical foul and should have carried the penalty of not only 2FTs, but also possession of the ball at the division line. Therefore, the fouls should have been administered in the order of occurrence.
Instead the officials administered the FTs for the T to an ASU player first, and then continued from the POI with the players occupying the lane spaces on the 1-1 FTs by Washington.

Did they kick it?

Okay, is this a test? It must be because I'm sure that you know the answer (no sarcasm .. don't read anything into that).

I'll take a stab at it (NFHS rules).

Since the foul was committed while the ball was dead it is a technical foul and two shots will be awarded. The fouls are administered in the order that they occurred so Washington will shoot the 1 - 1 with the lane clear then ASU would shoot two for the technical with the lane clear. ASU would then get the ball at mid court across from the table. :)

Sorry, but sarcasm.
 

How can I say this. This was a college game. NF Rules would not apply and whether they kicked this or not would not be based on NF rules.

Peace

That's correct for NFHS rules. :)

Do you want to do some reading and then try for how to do it under NCAA rules?

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

You'll have to ignore Rut. He turns into a gremlin after midnight local time. :D

No they didn't. In NCAA an intentional technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and there is contact. In this case, we have a common foul which is warranted a 1-1 then an intentional technical which is 2 shots and we continue play from the POI. In this case the last POI was the 1-1. So we shoot 2 for the intentional technical and resume play off the 1-1.

In high school, you would shoot the 1-1 and first with no one on the line then shoot 2 for the tech and have the ball o.b. at half court to them team that got to shoot the technical foul.

I don't think so.

I think they MIGHT have kicked it. Then again, they're working D1, and I'm not. Just what it seems like to me at first impression

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref
At 6:51 of the 1st half Washington's Quicy Pondexter was charged with a technical foul for pushing an ASU player during the dead ball following an ASU foul which warranted a 1-1.
It seems to me that this has to be an intentional technical foul and should have carried the penalty of not only 2FTs, but also possession of the ball at the division line. Therefore, the fouls should have been administered in the order of occurrence.
Instead the officials administered the FTs for the T to an ASU player first, and then continued from the POI with the players occupying the lane spaces on the 1-1 FTs by Washington.

Did they kick it?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


and isn't that exactly what happened?

Say what?:confused:

That's completely wrong under NCAA Mens rules. See NCAA rule 10-15 and 10-16-1. The penalty is 2 shots and the ball. You shoot the 1/1, followed by 2 for the "T", followed by the throw-in at center for the "T".

Okay .. first, ignore TRutledge is on.

I noticed that several others have already replied, but I didn't cheat and look at their answers.

If the referee did in fact call an intentional technical foul against the Washington player, that created a False Double Foul situation. In a false double foul situation where the one of the fouls is an intentional technical foul or a single flagarant technical foul, the fouls are handled in the order that they occurred, so Washington should have shot the 1-1 and then ASU would shoot two for the technical. ASU would then get the ball for a spot throw-in at the division line on either side of the court.

If, instead of an intentional technical foul, the referee called a direct technical foul against the Washington player, the false double foul situation still occurred, but the ball would be put into play at the point of interruption, which would be the 1-1, so in this case the officials would have handled it correctly.

So, if the referee called a direct technical foul against the Washington player, the administration of the penalties was handled correctly, but the call itself may have been booted because what the Washington player did appears to be more along the lines of an intentional technical foul.

If the referee called an intentional foul then they booted the administration of the penalties because they should have been handled in the order of occurrence with a division line throw in by ASU. :)

(BTW, because of all that reading I missed the South Park season opener):mad:

That is pretty much what my thinking was when watching the play. I was quite surprised given who the crew was that I was thinking that they administered/penalized it incorrectly.

Officials: Bob Cartmell, Bobby McRoy, Don Mcallister

If you are ignoring me because you do not know how to answer an NCAA question, then you are not worth to talk to me in the first place. :D

Peace

damn it! I read the scenario wrong again plus now thinking about it isn't that clear. If there is contact the ball is dead you have intentional technical and get the ball at the division line. My question is what type of tech was it. You can have a direct technical for using words at each other. If it's int. tech. then I have to say they kicked it. Thanks for the heads up Jurassic I was in a different world like always. when I'm on the court I'm zoned in on my book and the game at hand, so we don't kick it.

It sounds like they kicked it. I will ask Bobby about it today or tomorrow.

BTW, send up a prayer for Bobby. He has to have surgery on the 9th of April. I will get to spend some time with him when I'm out there. I normally stay with him and he works some games, but I don't know if he will be up to it this year.