Stick 'em or not?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

If A players are within earshot, in a quieter voice, "I don't want to have to call a T this late in a close game."

Silly me. I always thought that unsportsmanlike technicals were determined by the action of the player, not other factors. Please cite the rule number that states whether or not you call an unsportsmanlike technical is dependent on the score and/or the time left in a game. Thanks.

[The Canuck]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Silly me. I always thought that unsportsmanlike technicals were determined by the action of the player, not other factors. Please cite the rule number that states whether or not you call an unsportsmanlike technical is dependent on the score and/or the time left in a game. Thanks.

Nothing silly about it Mark, you're absolutely right. But this is language players understand. Nobody wants a technical to decide the game. If it has to, it has to, but if it can be prevented in any way, it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play".

Before you howl at that interpretation, sleep soundly knowing I never have to enforce this set of rules again. The bad thing about our profession is how eager we are to show each other up.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play".

In the op, it was stated that the ball was at the disposal of team A, which means it was already live. (6-2-b)

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

Nothing silly about it Mark, you're absolutely right. But this is language players understand. Nobody wants a technical to decide the game. If it has to, it has to, but if it can be prevented in any way, it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

In this case, the T can be prevented by you enforcing the rules as written. This is not a delay of game, nor is it a T. It's simply a 5-count, as described in the rule book.

Originally Posted by The Canuck

10.3.20. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play. This shall also apply to bench personnel.

To me, actively refusing to put the ball in play by ignoring it is "preventing the ball from being promptly made live" AND "preventing continuous play". Before you howl at that interpretation, sleep soundly knowing I never have to enforce this set of rules again.

After a made basket, the ball is live when it's available to the players on the team that didn't just shoot. So the ball was live, and no one was preventing it from become live. It's not a matter of "your interpretation", it's a matter of knowing the rules and applying them appropriately.

Originally Posted by The Canuck

The bad thing about our profession is how eager we are to show each other up.

No one is anxious to show anyone up here. we're just anxious that all refs are applying the rules in a consistent manner, consistent with each other and consistent with the way they're written. That's the best way to ensure that all games and all teams get a "fair game".

** HHmmmm does this reply sound similar to some replies I've made toa certain someone else a time or two? to replies others have made to a certain someone else? HHmmm...