Call The T

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I never said I was in the automatic T camp (your words, not mine), just that I THOUGHT it looked appropriate here...and since you asked:

Player Technical Rule 10-3-6b: Delay the game by such acts as failing, when in posession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when the whistle blows.

Interesting that you would call it based on an act delaying the game rather than an unsporting act.

And since a timeout had just been granted, perhaps he was not delaying the game? I do think it's possible that if there had been a violation or other activity and the official wanted to put the ball right back into play, throwing the ball down and away from the official may have been viewed differently.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Interesting that you would call it based on an act delaying the game ...

I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

Then I'll ask how did he delay the game? In order to violate the rule you cited it has to delay the game.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Then I'll ask how did he delay the game? In order to violate the rule you cited it has to delay the game.

In the literal sense, the official is delayed from whatever his next action is...reporting, making the ball live by throw in, whatever...while having to fetch a ball that the player spiked. That's part of the game.

In reality, I have to believe the Fed put this rule in to allow officials some latitude in addressing foolish behavior such as this.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In the literal sense, the official is delayed from whatever his next action is...reporting, whatever...while having to fetch a ball that the player spiked. That's part of the game.

In reality, I have to believe the Fed put this rule in to allow officials some latitude in addressing foolish behavior such as this.

If the fed wants this foolish behavior addressed then why not add a rule: technical foul for slamming the ball to the floor during a dead ball.

Seems simple enough.

And if you're gonna T for delay on the play we're talking about... how often have you T'ed a player who walks with the ball back towards his bench during a timeout?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

If the fed wants this foolish behavior addressed then why not add a rule: technical foul for slamming the ball to the floor during a dead ball.

Seems simple enough.

I like that. Removes any ambiguity...just look how long this thread has gotten discussing it.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

And if you're gonna T for delay on the play we're talking about... how often have you T'ed a player who walks with the ball back towards his bench during a timeout?

Not yet...7 varsity seasons so far. Can't recall ever having that occur.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Not yet...7 varsity seasons so far. Can't recall ever having that occur.

You've never had a player walk to the bench holding the ball at the start of a timeout? And if he did... you gonna T him up?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

If the fed wants this foolish behavior addressed then why not add a rule: technical foul for slamming the ball to the floor during a dead ball.

Seems simple enough.

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

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Damn worms. Hate 'em.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

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

[Back In The Saddle]

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!

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

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.