Mark P. and the Technical Foul rule

[ChuckElias]

In another ridiculously long and tortuous thread, I found this gem written by Mark Padgett:

However - I'm sure we can all agree on the following:

1) The NF needs to establish a case to cover all of this
2) The NF needs to better define the term "disposal"
3) The NF should define whether or not a case ruling for a particular inquiry from a single state applies nationwide
4) The NF should change the possession penalty that exists as part of the technical foul rule

OOPS - just couldn't resist slipping that last one in

And speaking of #4. . .

Did anybody see the Wake Forest/Clemson game last night? Or see the highlights on SportsCenter this morning. Game went OT and in the OT with about 7 seconds left, Wake scored and Clemson couldn't inbound the ball, so the inbounder requests a time-out. Official grants it and. . . Holy Chris Webber, Batman!! They're out of time-outs!!

Technical foul on Clemson, Wake shoots two FTs to cut the Clemson lead to 3 and then -- Clemson gets the ball back!!! Point of interruption, baby!!

They inbound successfully this time and the game is over. If Wake Forest had been given the ball as part of the penalty for the T, they would've had a much better chance to tie the game and force another OT. The women's rule is actually better in this instance. After a T, they return the ball to the POI, except in the case of intentional, flagrant, or excessive TO technicals.

Just thought I'd share,

Chuck