old discussion revisited

[Mark Padgett]

We went through this quite some time ago, but with all the newbies over the past year or two, I thought it might be a good lively topic to go over again. Here it is:

NF rules. The penalty for a technical foul is two shots and possession. The penalty is the same whether the offending team is on offense or on defense. The question is - is the penalty equitable or does it penalize a team more for committing a technical while on offense than on defense?

An offensive team loses two free throws and possession but a team on defense didn't have possession in the first place, so do they really "lose" it?

The argument in support of the penalty being equal had to do with the theory that on any free throws, the non-shooting team either automatically gets possession if the throws are made or at least has the best chance of getting possession if the last throw is missed, and the technical penalty takes that away.

OK guys - the floor is open.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

NF rules. The penalty for a technical foul is two shots and possession. The penalty is the same whether the offending team is on offense or on defense. The question is - is the penalty equitable or does it penalize a team more for committing a technical while on offense than on defense?

Fair has nothing to do with it.
When a team causes any act that is "unfair, unethical, dishonorable or not in the spirit of fair play", they have earned the consequences.

[BillyMac]

Early on, in my middle school coaching days, when I wanted to get a technical to "fire up" my team, I would make sure that I got it when the other team had the ball. Worst case scenario, the other team gets two points due to my strategy. That only lasted a few years, and then, "I saw the light", and became a more sportsmanlike coach.

[truerookie]

Personally, I don't look at what's fair or not fair. When a rule has been violated, I will penalize accordingly. If you are dumb enough to commit the offense, I will be dumb enough to penalize.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mick

Fair has nothing to do with it.
When a team causes any act that is "unfair, unethical, dishonorable or not in the spirit of fair play", they have earned the consequences.

Originally Posted by truerookie

Personally, I don't look at what's fair or not fair. When a rule has been violated, I will penalize accordingly.

I don't think anybody's saying that you shouldn't penalize the rule as it is now written. The question is whether you think that the rule as now written is a good rule. Would support changing it somehow to make the penalty the same for both the offense and the defense? For example, by going to the POI after most technicals, as is done in NCAA.

Personally, I have no real strong feeling about it either way. I work both rulesets, so I'm used to both. I'd be fine with a change to the NCAA rule (minus all the Class A/Class B silliness), but I'm also fine with it the way it is.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think anybody's saying that you shouldn't penalize the rule as it is now written. The question is whether you think that the rule as now written is a good rule. Would support changing it somehow to make the penalty the same for both the offense and the defense? For example, by going to the POI after most technicals, as is done in NCAA.

Personally, I have no real strong feeling about it either way. I work both rulesets, so I'm used to both. I'd be fine with a change to the NCAA rule (minus all the Class A/Class B silliness), but I'm also fine with it the way it is.

And I am sayin' *Fair* still shouldn't be a concern.
In fact, ... give the non-offending team 4 shots and the ball ... twice.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The question is whether you think that the rule as now written is a good rule. Would support changing it somehow to make the penalty the same for both the offense and the defense? For example, by going to the POI after most technicals, as is done in NCAA.

Thank you. That was the point. Also remember the penalty for team control fouls does not include free throws. So, a defender fouling an offensive player has the consequence of free throws (if against a shooter or against a non-shooter but when in the penalty) but an offensive player fouling a defender in exactly the same manner results in no free throws. It's the same argument as the technical penalty.

The point is, shouldn't the penalty for a foul be the same regardless of whether it was committed by the offense or the defense if it was the same foul?

[Adam]

Mark, they extended the non-shooting stuff from just the player control to the team control because of the turnover that comes with an offensive foul. When you consider the turnover, the penalties even out.

With the technical fouls, though, I'm with Scrappy. I lean towards liking it the way it is, but realize it may just be because that's how I've always done it. If it ain't broke....

[BBall_Junkie]

I believe the NFHS rule is inequitable and I believe "fair" has everything to do with it. I will administer the rule as written but I don't think it is right.

As I too work both the NCAA and NFHS rulesets I believe the NCAA has it right and would hope that the NFHS comes around before too long.

Just my opinion.