BUT Duke got the ball at Half Court
 

It appears that they clearly called a dead ball intentional T (it's either nothing, intentional or flagrant when the ball is dead) after the held ball was called. That is why any player from UNC could shoot the free throws and that is why the ball would be taken out at half court and not nearest spot. BUT, the ball was given to Duke at half court, which may have been from the A/P POI, but incorrect in this context.

Edit: I see others have mentioned that Duke got the ball at half court. Wasn't familiar with this forum and the multiple pages.

The play by play sheet has this transpiring as a steal by Singler and then a Technical on Singler.
There is not listing other than technical So the only way that I see this would be they called a T non- intentional - and gave the ball to Duke at POI but I still have not seen the play will look tonight.

If they'd gone AP/POI, would the ball not have been inbounded on the endline?

Never listen to Bob.

I misread the other thread (in terms of who got the ball), I didn't see the play and the player's names mean nothing to me.

What kind of Duke fan are you? Sheesh!

Yes, nearest spot. But in this play the intentional T overrides and ball is awarded to offended team at division line. even though we had a held ball, the arrow would not change.

I understand that much. My point is that it makes no sense to give the ball to Duke at the division line. Either give it to Duke on the endline (if you're going POI) or give it to UNC at the division line.

I know which is correct, but there's at least some logic to the other. The way it was don't doesn't make sense.

I dont see how you can call an elbow that makes contact (and you think its intentional) NOT FLAGRANT!!!!

It almost like saying "I know he punched him but it didn't knock him out so we dont need to eject him."

A jump ball is called where Team A gets the AP. About a second after the whistle is blown while A1 is holding the ball, B1 attempts to knock the ball out of A1's hands but slaps A1's arm.

With all due respect, I am sorry but I am not going to ignore this contact.

If this type of action/foul happened during a live ball, it would be a common foul (since the contact was neither intentional or flagrant). But since this occurred during a dead ball (whistle blown for the jump ball), it would be penalized as a intentional technical.

If it wasn't intentional/flagrant when the ball was live, why would be intentional/flagrant when the ball is dead?

-Josh

I agree, I guess the answer could be they flat out kicked it all around. Unless someone close to the situation has any insight, we'll probably never know.

I wish Fox and Scully would come back and help us out with this one.

Call it an unsportsmanlike foul if you like. Either way, it should be a T.

Because it is by definition:

2008-09 NCAA Rulebook

Pg 73 Rule 4 Art 3

g. (Men) Intentional technical foul. An intentional technical foul
involves intentionally contacting an opponent in an excessive nonflagrant
manner when the ball is dead.

So if it's not excessive during live ball play, why would be be excessive during a dead ball?

-Josh