Bonehead play of the week.
 

Boys AAU 17 under Super Pool
Division Pool Play

Team B just scored to bring the score to 60- 56 team A leading with 00:14:06 to play.Team B called time out after the score.
Resumptiion of play
Team A's ball to inbound on the base line with the ability to run the end line.
A2 and B3 are jostling for position just sort of banging bodies a little (B3 has about a 4 inch height advantage on A2 and wants to keep between him and the ball) - I still have the ball and I am just getting ready to step in and stop the jostling for position when A2 looks up to B3 and nails him in the side with an elbow that disables him for a second.
I put the whistle in my mouth give it a tweet, make sure we do not have any retaliation and head to the table ...?
What do you have?

There are only 2 choices under NFHS rules. An intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. Your choice. NFHS rule 4-19-5(c).

Same call and choices under NCAA rules--NCAA rules 4-26-5&7.

Sounds premeditated. Flagrant. See ya.

FWIW, 00:14:06 signifies that there are 14 minutes and 6 seconds remaining. Guessing that you're likely talking Fed rules, I wonder how you end up with > 8 minutes on the clock. Also guesing that if 14 minutes is correct, you're using 16-, 18- or 20-minute halves. If so, how does AAU ball score that many points in such a short amount of time? If 14 seconds is correct, the correct notation, when not specifying units, is 00:14.06.

I had a similar situation in AAU ball this weekend. 2:30 to go in a quarterfinal 17U game, Team A is up 54-53. We've already had 2 technicals in the game for pushing and shoving after a play, and these teams just don't like each other. Two man game, I'm inbounding in front of the table. Just as I put the ball in play, A1 starts to turn to pick B1, and B1 responds by giving a sharp elbow to the temple. I immediately called flagrant and tossed him. HC for Team B didn't say a word.

I think your situation also sounds like it deserves a flagrant.

I've got a flagrant technical foul. See ya A2.

14.06 seconds remaining in the second half - we were playing 14 minute halves.

Pretty easy Techinal or Intentional as for ejection only the officials have a feel for the game going on.

I know this doesn't really matter to your situation, but did the clock really display hundredths of a second? I don't think I've ever seen that on a basketball clock.

As for the elbow, I'd go with the intentional T, but not flagrant. If it hit the head, then flagrant; but in the ribs, I don't think so.

There is a high school in the Toledo area that when the clock goes under one minute and the clock stops it shows hundredths of a second.

MTD, Sr.

Judgment call on your part as to if it is flagrant or not. If it's a basketball play, in other words, he's working to get position, I would just call a technical. If he went outside the bounds of keeping it basketball related, I would call flagrant. The thing about flagrant, if you're going to call that, make sure there's no doubt that the act was to injured or hurt the player. For ex: I had a game where B2 foul A1 and while A1 was picking himself up off the floor and my partner was reporting the foul to the table with his back turned to the players, B2 punched A1 in the face. There is no doubt, there was nothing basketball related to that play. The intent was to injure.

If it's a "basketball play" then it's not going to be a technical. A dead ball contact techical can only be intentional or flagrant. A "basketball play" is neither.

Is that right JR? I thought intentional technical was only NCAA mens. For NFHS, you can only have technical or flagrant technical. In NCAA, you could have technical, intentional technical, or flagrant technical.

NFHS - Intentional Technical or Flagrant Technical

NCAA - Same (because there is contact it cannot be a technical by itself)

Pardon my correction, but...

NCAAM - Same
NCAAW - Flagrant technical is the only choice. (There is no intentional technical in NCAAW.)

Did some games at a college that shows hundredths of a second as well. I didn't like it; it was made by the Hamilton Scoreboard Company. They have a new clock now. I'll be at that gym this weekend.

I go to the table issue the Flagrant Technical Foul, because the player looked right at him and then nailed him,
both free throws were made
Team B scored to tie it and we went to overtime.
Team A came from behind in overtime to win by 5 points 70 - 65,
Team A coach had no problem with the call it was one of those where everyone in the gym saw it happen because it was the only action going on on the floor at the time.

The game had approximately 55 fouls w/two technicals including this one.
5 players fouled out.

NFHS rule 4-19-3 says "An intentional foul is a personal or <b>technical</b> foul......".

NFHS rule 4-19-4 says "A technical foul is an <b>intentional</b> or flagrant <b>contact</b> foul while the ball is <b>dead</b>....."

I think we might be a little too technical here. My point was in judging flagrant or not.

__________________
Long live David Stern...

Damm, those pesky rules terms. Geez, Bob.

While you're correct that NCAA-W doesn't have an intentional technical foul, you can still call a "regular" technical foul in this situation:


Rule 10-7:
Art. 3. (Women) A direct technical foul is also a non-flagrant foul by any
player that involves contact or causes contact with an opponent while the
ball is dead.

Am I right in saying that there is no difference in administration for a technical foul and an intentional technical foul in NFHS, but in NCAA for a technical foul it's 2 shots and POI but an intentional technical foul is 2 shots and ball at division line?

I guess my point earlier was that there really isn't a difference between a technical or intentional technical in NFHS. But I could be wrong here again too.

You're right. The only difference is that the only technical you can have for contact is the intentional technical during a dead ball.
But you're right, there's no difference in NFHS in the administration.

How can you have more time remaining that what you started the half with?:confused:

I hope that clears up your question. :)

Nice pun.

Then you need to use words that indicate that is what you are trying to convey.

I don't mean to make this personal, but more than once you have used a phrase, been called on it, and then the subsequent discussion makes it seem as if you "misquoted yourself." And, since, imo, your rules knowledge is suspect, it's hard to tell which is which.

So, in this thread, rather than your saying "I would just call a technical" you should have said, "I would have delayed making the ball live and admonished the players" (or something like that).

Yep, your explanation and my 4th cup of coffee cleared it up.:D

Point taken and thanks for the English lesson. I keep forgetting. I keep thinking this is a public forum but really it isn't. Everytime someone from the general public comes out here, their opinions are attacked on a personal level and then asked to leave.

I think too much emphasis is put on who is saying it and not what is being said. A problem I noticed this culture tends to have. It's not about what is said but more who said it. I always like the movie where the president of the company takes a job at the lower level so that he can get to know the people from the ground up. It's amazing what you learn about people in a setting like this. For ex: you learn who the people are that have personal agendas, who are 2-faced, that are out for their own. You learn who you can trust and who you can't. Then a miracle happens and you meet a honest person who treats everyone the same, who respects everyone he/she meets. These are the type of people you want running your company.

No, this is really not a public forum because the general public is not welcome here. It is a private forum with a public interface. The motto here is shoot the messenger, first, and then ask questions. Kind of goes to your 2nd paragraph, wouldn't you say Bob.

It's true that some posters are given the "benefit of the doubt" while others are not. That's based on the individual's posting history.

It's equally true that a statment such as "I would call a regular (neither Intentional nor Flagrant) Technical" during a dead ball would quickly get corrected no matter who said it.

OS:

You still do not get the point that. This is an open forum. Basketball officials, coaches, players, fans, and officials that do not officiate basketball but do officiate other sports read this forum. The basketball officials have a professional obligatioin to use the correct terminology and quote the correct rules and casebook plays so that the non-basketball officials who read and sometimes post in this forum can benefit from reading threads in this forum. You have been told many times in the past the importance of using correct terminology and you still refuse to do so. Please get with the program.

MTD, Sr.

It's not that I refuse. I'm just not a scholar in the art of rule knowledge. For that I apologize, but I refuse to accept personal insults simply because you disagree or you don't like the way I said it. As bad as I am perceived by some of the others, is as bad as some of the other members are in unethical conduct on this board. Trying to teach someone by insulting them doesn't work for everyone. It may work on those that are less committed, but not for everyone.

A lesson that would you should take to heart yourself. Spare us the lecture. This post drips of hypocrisy.

OS:

You do not have to be a rules scholar to use correct terminology if you are a basketball official and you claim to be a basketball official. I expect my basketball officiating students to use correct terminology from the very beginning of their very first class. The terminology is very easy to learn. You will find the vast majority of the terminolgy that you need in Rule 4 in both the NFHS and NCAA rules books. Rule 4 is entitled Definitions. Study them and learn them by heart. Lack of knowledge of definitions gets officials in trouble the vast majority of the time no matter what the sport being officiated.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, your willingness to help and your patience with OS is admirable. But he's not a ref. He's never been a ref. He's not here to learn. He's here ONLY -- and I truly believe this -- ONLY to cause trouble and get a rise out of people. He adds not one thing of value to this forum. His only contributions are misinformation, lies and confusion for newer officials. His account should be pulled immediately. Not after review. Immediately.

If we can't do that, then I request that I be made a moderator and volunteer to delete every single post he makes as soon as I see them.

It's been requested -- several weeks ago. Interestingly, for a while after the request, the tone of his posts changed. I think he even used the phrase, "I learned something from this thread." It might just be coincidence.

And, old school, lest you think this is personal, I have deleted and edited many,many posts containing personal insults toward you.

ditto from me as well.

Ummm, I can vouch for the veracity of both of the posts made previous to this one. ;)