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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am really tired of hearing about fairness. A technical foul is a major infraction of the rules. For over 100 years the final part of the TF penalty was a free throw awarded to the team that shot the TF free throws. Today the rules are more complex than they were forty or fifty years ago because of this ill-conceived notion that the rules must be fair.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A technical foul is a major infraction of the rules. For over 100 years the final part of the TF penalty was a free throw awarded to the team that shot the TF free throws.

You, of all Forum members should know. Is it really true that Dr. Naismith threw a chair at you, earning the first technical foul in the history of the game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You, of all Forum members should know. Is it really true that Dr. Naismith threw a chair at you, earning the first technical foul in the history of the game.

Keeping in mind that my mother is a Kansas native and a graduate of the Univ. of Kansas. Dr. Naismith is the asnwer to a trivia question that very very few people get the right answer.

Dr. Naismith was the first men's basketball coach at Kansas (that is why the court at Phogg Allen Fieldhouse is named after Dr. Naismith) and coached two players that went on to be legendary college coaches: Adoph Rupp (Kentucky) and Dr. Phogg Allen (Kansas).

The trivia question: Who is the only men's basketball coach at Kansas to have a losing record for his tenure at Kansas?

Also Dr. Naismith had doctorates in two areas: medicene and theology. And was a Canadian.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The trivia question: Who is the only men's basketball coach at Kansas to have a losing record for his tenure at Kansas?

In 1898, Naismith became the first college basketball coach of the Kansas University basketball team. He compiled a record of 55-60, and ironically became the only Kansas coach to have a losing record.

1898-99 Kansas 7 4 .636
1899-1900 Kansas 3 4 .429
1900-01 Kansas 4 8 .333
1901-02 Kansas 5 7 .417
1902-03 Kansas 7 8 .467
1903-04 Kansas 5 8 .385
1904-05 Kansas 5 6 .455
1905-06 Kansas 12 7 .632
1906-07 Kansas 7 8 .467
Total Kansas 55 60 .478

[shishstripes]

I went home to Washington state and watched my hometown play and was observing the officials because I live in remote AK and don't get the chance to do much. The crew working had an administrative technical, shot the two shots and went to the POI for the throw-in (which was at the endline) rather than division line. In AK all "t's" are two free-throws and ball at the division line so threw me a bit but they also have shot clock for girls too.

Anyone from WA or any other states do the same not trying to hijack the thread but is pertinent to the discussion I think.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am really tired of hearing about fairness.

Tired of hearing about fairness? Obviously, we are supposed to administer the rules, even we think they're not fair; but shouldn't we be working to make the rules fair to both teams? How is basic fairness something to be disregarded? Oh, jeez, do we have to talk about fairness again?!?! Let's just give the home team 20 points to start the game. No it's not fair to the visitors, but we'll just consider it part of the home field advantage. If we're not concerned about fairness, why are we officiating in the first place?

A technical foul is a major infraction of the rules. For over 100 years the final part of the TF penalty was a free throw awarded to the team that shot the TF free throws.

Are you saying that the penalty for a technical foul was 3 shots? They would shoot 2 for the technical and then shoot one more for committing a foul? I've never heard of that. That doesn't mean it's not true, but if that was the rule for 100 years, I would think that I would have heard about it.

Today the rules are more complex than they were forty or fifty years ago because of this ill-conceived notion that the rules must be fair.

The rules are obviously more complex, but I'm not sure it's because simply because somebody arbitrarily said, let's make them more fair. The game itself is a lot more complicated that it was 30 or 50 or 100 years ago. The rules reflect that.

I just don't get where this semi-rant about fairness is coming from. If we don't want to hear about fairness, then we should be officiating pro wrestling.