They are exactly the same if you're considering it to be a failure to pass the ball immediately to an official.

I gotta' admit, that one made me chuckle out loud. It's just so gosh darn cute. :) In fact, I think it really should be a word.

I would tend to agree with this as well. If you can look back at the replay, it looked like CDR immediately turned to look at the official (Hightower I believe). Perhaps he was spoken to and apologized immediately. I felt it was handled very well.

No play happens in a vacuum, including this one.

A tech in this situation last night would have been horrendous and would be ALL that the idiot ref-hating (*cough*Gottlieb*cough*) commentators would be talking about today.

Neither, obviously is understanding the entire passage.

The key part is "delay the game." If he didn't "delay the game" than the rest starting with "such acts" is irrelevant.

OK. Now distinguish between a soft dribble, a firm dribble, a hard dribble, and a slam. Hmmmm. Another can of worms just popped open.

As for the rule you're interested in applying, it makes no distinction between dropping it in place and tossing it somewhere else....if neither is where the official is, this rule applies....if you're going to call it by the letter.

Damn worms. Hate 'em.

And THAT is exactly what makes the difference in properly applying most rules.

All they had to do was go TWO for 5 instead of ONE for 5 and Chalmers' shot would only have made it look close.

Wow. I'm flabbergasted by the number of people who want this not to be an automatic T at the HS level.

I will say that if I were working the KU/Memphis game, I wouldn't have called the T either. I don't think it fit that game. That game just IS different. However, agreeing with Billy Packer about anything is enough to make me think twice about my position! :eek:

But on a Friday night at my local HS, there's a very high probability that I'm calling the T. For nothing more than committing an unsporting foul, if you insist on having a rule cited to back it up.

When the removing the jersey rule was added, there were a whole bunch of folks who insisted they didn't need a specific rule to address this. That it was just another sportsmanship issue, and they'd already got a rule to handle that. Same thing with the taunting and baiting rule. I don't need the Fed to add a special rule to take care of bidness.

One of the very first HS camps I went to, the crew let a kid get away with either slamming or kicking the ball (I don't recall which). But I remember the evaluator's rebuke: "That's as close as it gets to automatic. If you won't call that, what will you call?"

And slamming the ball IS as close automatic as it gets. The times that I have not called this, somebody has consistently complained. The times I have called it, nobody has complained. Why? Because anybody who has been around basketball for any length of time knows you don't do that.

I used to consider this an "automatic" but, in my experience, reaction has been the exact opposite. I've been chewed out at camps for calling this a T.

Nowadays, I try to take the complete circumstance into account. Last night's game - probably no T.

I'm also surprised by the number of people who would rather debate the nuances of the rule for calling a T rather than just calling it what it is...An unacceptable behavior for a varsity HS player...worthy of a T, whichever rule you want to use.

A big part of being on this board is determining which rules apply. The point being made on the rule you cited is that it in no way applied to the scenario.

And just so you know, in a HS setting that I work, normally a slam of the ball like that will elicit a T from me. But in the exact scenario as happened Monday, it probably wouldn't.

Exactly what behavior was unacceptable? There seems to be the opinion of some that the very act of slamming the ball to the ground should be punished. Others feel there should be some leeway based upon the game situation.

Let's look at the game situation: Under 1:00, Memphis has the ball and a 2 point lead. Kansas fouls #14 (Douglas-Roberts), #14 for Memphis goes to the line for 2 FT's. #14 misses both FT's, but #2 (Dozier) for Memphis gets the rebound, passes to #23 (Rose), Kansas fouls Rose, and #14 ends up with the ball as his team is granted a TO. #14 then slams the ball to the ground, it bounces in the air to a Kansas player, who then also bounces the ball hard.

Let's recap: Memphis has a 2 point lead, has the ball, has 2 FT's coming up, and has just called a TO. So, why did #14 slam the ball hard? Was it because he was upset with the foul call? Was he showing any disrespect to the officials? Was he taunting the other team? Of course, the answer to these is no; he was simply quite obviously upset with himself for missing those 2 FT's a few moments earlier. So this seems to eliminate the unsporting behavior aspect. The TO had just been granted, so there is no obvious delay in being able to put the ball back in play.

Most of the time when a player slams the ball down, it is in response to getting a foul or violation called on them. That's why the T is called - for the unsporting behavior of the reaction, not the specific act. You will usually see the two happen together, and perhaps that's how people have come to associate the "slam" with the T. However, you will not find "Slam the ball down in a forceful manner" as one of the items listed in Rule 10. There is a subtle difference, and that is why those officials were working that particular game - they know that difference. When I saw the play, my reaction was "Uh, oh...", but as I processed what actually happened, I saw why the officials did not penalize it. The more I think about it, the more I hope I would call it the same way in a high school game.