Eventful day

[zm1283]

Had three JVB games today. First game we had a player reach across the boundary line and contact the ball. Called the T but kicked it when I gave it to the team and not the player.

The next game A1 and B1 were going for a rebound and ended up on the floor. B's team had gotten the rebound and started up court when A1 kicked at B1 but didn't really contact him. If he did it was very minor. I felt like I couldn't let it go though so we went with the intentional personal. What do you guys think? It definitely wasn't flagrant.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Had three JVB games today. First game we had a player reach across the boundary line and contact the ball. Called the T but kicked it when I gave it to the team and not the player.

One way to remember this is that if a single player accounts for the technical, the T is on him (he reached through and hit the ball). If the player contributed only 50% (or less) to the technical (second or third, etc. player to violate the boundary without hitting the ball) then the T is on the team.

Also remember that hitting the ball and getting the T also counts as a warning.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

One way to remember this is that if a single player accounts for the technical, the T is on him (he reached through and hit the ball). If the player contributed only 50% (or less) to the technical (second or third, etc. player to violate the boundary without hitting the ball) then the T is on the team.

Also remember that hitting the ball and getting the T also counts as a warning.

Got it, thanks.

Yeah I had the scorer record the warning for delay because of the T.

Originally Posted by zm1283

The next game A1 and B1 were going for a rebound and ended up on the floor. B's team had gotten the rebound and started up court when A1 kicked at B1 but didn't really contact him. If he did it was very minor. I felt like I couldn't let it go though so we went with the intentional personal. What do you guys think? It definitely wasn't flagrant.

I don't think it fits the intentional "personal" foul category as there was no contact. By rule, once you put air in it, I believe the only two options you had were an unsporting technical foul (frustrasted player) or a flagrant technical foul (damn knucklehead).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I don't think it fits the "personal" foul category as there was no contact. By rule, once you put air in it, I believe the only two options you had were an unsporting technical foul (frustrasted player) or a flagrant technical foul (damn knucklehead).

If you think there was contact (even the slightest amount), an intentional personal might work here. If you're sure there wasn't, go with the T.

Personally, I like the T better on this.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I don't think it fits the "personal" foul category as there was no contact. By rule, once you put air in it, I believe the only two options you had were an unsporting technical foul (frustrasted player) or a flagrant technical foul (damn knucklehead).

Is unsporting technical the live ball T? Would that be the same if a player told another one to F-off during a live ball?

It wasn't a flagrant for sure. If it were, why would it be a flagrant technical and not a flagrant personal?

Originally Posted by zm1283

Is unsporting technical the live ball T? Would that be the same if a player told another one to F-off during a live ball?

It wasn't a flagrant for sure. If it were, why would it be a flagrant technical and not a flagrant personal?

Yes

Personal fouls involve contact & your post led me to believe that you were unsure. I think if we are unsure then it didn't happen, keeps us out of trouble.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Yes

Personal fouls involve contact & your post led me to believe that you were unsure. I think if we are unsure then it didn't happen, keeps us out of trouble.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help.