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.

Art. 12 False Double Foul. A false double foul occurs when there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the game clock is started after it is stopped for the first but such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

A.R. 21. A1 is entitled to a one-and-one free throw. Before the ball is handed to A1, Team A's coach is assessed a direct technical foul. RULING. The direct technical foul creates a false fouble foul. Team B shall be awarded two free throws because of the diret technical foul on coach A. After Team B shoots the free throws for the technical foul, A1 shall attempt the one-and-one since that was the point of interruption.

Joe, what does all this have to do with the play from the game last night?

Well in the OP, what was created was a false double foul. I quoted the rule and the case play to show that the refs DID NOT kick the rule. You shoot the FTs for the intentional technical foul, then you go back to the POI and shoot the 1 and 1.

Joe, this is NOT correct. As others have pointed out, part of the penalty for an intentional technical foul is possession of the ball (2 shots and the ball). So if the technical was for dead ball contact, then the refs kicked it by not awarding possession along with the 2 shots.

If the technical was for something that was SAID during the dead ball, then this is a direct technical (not intentional) and the situation was handled correctly.

Again, that is completely <b>wrong</b> under NCAA Mens rules. Part of the penalty for an intentional technical foul is getting the ball at center after the FT's. The applicable rules have already been cited--NCAA rules 10-15 & 10-16-1.

You're right, and I stand corrected... Thanks.

You're correct.. I guess I just kicked it like the other three last night, if it was an Intentional Technical.

Did somebody say something????

Yah lets us know. I know bobby was working right now with Bruce Hicks, Mike Reed.
But yah let us know on that ruling.

Who is this person again?

Peace

I don't believe this is a double foul because only one team was penalized.

Once again I don't believe that you are correct. :D

(There were fouls against both ASU and Washington in this case. If both fouls had been against only one team, it would have been a false multiple foul. :cool: )

Thats a no brainer. I thought in the post he said that ASU fouled which was 1-1 and then got a tech? I could have miss read it. if I did he is right.

Well, I wrote the original post! :)

We're just going to have to pick on you for a while and make you really good at the rules. ;)

Opps! I did miss read the scenario. Now I feel like dumbass even more. Hey but if you are willing to make me better I will gladly accept the offer. In a game situation I know how to enforce it. When I see it on paper I tend to zip through it. So I'm slowing and thinking I'm on the floor. You guys are the best.

The administration was rushed and was kicked.

Even national championship experience doesn't keep an official from having a brain fart! :D

Thanks for the feedback, Tom.

Did Bill tell them or do anything.

I don't know if he did and I don't know why it matters. It doesn't and didn't take the assignor to tell three officials that they didn't administer technical foul correctly at the D1 level. It was rushed and the calling official rushed it. Many times we talk about coming together before administering T's so we know what we have. If they would have done that, this situation probably wouldn't have happened.

Very true. I only asked because sometimes you hear stuff about it.

...and for those of us who aren't on a first name basis with the Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officiating for the Pacific-10 Conference, he is referring to William S. McCabe.

http://www.pac-10.org/sports/m-baskb...042406aab.html