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

[rockyroad]

And that is exactly why the NCAA Women's rule is different on that point...that coach knew that if he called the t.o. he would give up 2 free throws, but if they turned it over he could possibly give up a 3pt. shot...he chose to call the t.o. KNOWING he would get the ball back at worst still up by three...it's a loophole thet the Men's rules people will probably fix this summer...

[ChuckElias]

Rocky, just from watching the highlights, I'm pretty sure the TO was requested by the player inbounding the ball. The official who blew the whistle for the TO was the Trail (administering the throw-in), so I don't think he heard a coach's request. In any case, the coach did not seem pleased. The R went to explain it to him.

While I agree that a smart coach (oxymoron?) could manipulate the rule that way, I don't think that's what happened in this particular case. Clemson just got lucky. I think.

Chuck

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Rocky, just from watching the highlights, I'm pretty sure the TO was requested by the player inbounding the ball. The official who blew the whistle for the TO was the Trail (administering the throw-in), so I don't think he heard a coach's request. In any case, the coach did not seem pleased. The R went to explain it to him.

I wonder if the coach told the player to call it.

While I agree that a smart coach (oxymoron?) ....

I think we need to come up with a new word to use for the few coaches like Hawks Coach who study the rules, don't berate the refs, and are more intherested in the personal development of their players than in winning at all cost. We need a word for those folks, because cute little remarks like this aren't nearly as much fun when I think of Hawks' Coach reading them. If we could call him, say, "Hawks' Mentor" or "Hawks' Benefactor" then we could keep feeling superior to coaches, because Hawks' Coach, and a few others like him, would be in a separate category.