Singler Elbow to Hansbrough's Jaw

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Carolina did NOT get the ball after the T.

Duke got the ball at the division line.

I hope someone can explain why because it made no sense to me.

Oh, must have heard the info wrong. A D-League buddy of mine called to asked what happened on the play b/c he couldn't figure out what was going on either.

In the closed thread Bob said the admin seemed correct. But I don't see how it can be correct if a dead ball foul of some type was called on Singler that involved contact.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not on a dead ball intentional contact Technical. This is the only Men's T given where you put the ball at the division line. I will have to look this up and confirm, but this T should not be a POI administration.

Peace

You are correct, no need to look it up. A couple years ago there were False Double Fouls in the BC/Duke game that involved a taunting T against A1 followed up by a Intentional Contact Technical against B1. After administration Team A received the ball at the division line as a result of the foul against B1.

[BktBallRef]

NCAA 4-53-1e

Point of interruption is a procedure used to resume play because:

Any technical foul(s).

Exceptions: (Men) single intentional technical foul
and single flagrant technical foul.

NCAA 7-5-7

After a technical foul, a player of the offended team may attempt
the free throws and the ball shall be put back in play at the point of
interruption.

Exceptions: (Men)

Flagrant technical foul and intentional technical
foul, play shall resume by awarding the ball to the offended team at a
designated spot at the division line on either side of the playing court.

Help me out!

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Oh, must have heard the info wrong. A D-League buddy of mine called to asked what happened on the play b/c he couldn't figure out what was going on either.

In the closed thread Bob said the admin seemed correct. But I don't see how it can be correct if a dead ball foul of some type was called on Singler that involved contact.



You are correct, no need to look it up. A couple years ago there were False Double Fouls in the BC/Duke game that involved a taunting T against A1 followed up by a Intentional Contact Technical against B1. After administration Team A received the ball at the division line as a result of the foul against B1.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

NCAA 4-53-1e

Point of interruption is a procedure used to resume play because:

Any technical foul(s).

Exceptions: (Men) single intentional technical foul
and single flagrant technical foul.

NCAA 7-5-7

After a technical foul, a player of the offended team may attempt
the free throws and the ball shall be put back in play at the point of
interruption.

Exceptions: (Men)

Flagrant technical foul and intentional technical
foul, play shall resume by awarding the ball to the offended team at a
designated spot at the division line on either side of the playing court.

Help me out!

I stand corrected. I guess I can leave work now, I learned something new already.

-Josh

[OHBBREF]

Rule 10.
Section 5 (MEN) CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions
RESUMPTION OF PLAY: For any technical foul(s), play shall resume at the point of ineteruption except for a single intentional or a single Flagrant technical foul. For a single intetional or a single flagrant technical, the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at a designated spot at the division line on either side of the playing court.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the closed thread Bob said the admin seemed correct.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Never listen to Bob.

Oh no. This is worse than the Epimenides paradox!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is worse than the Epimenides paradox!

I bet this website gets a record number of hits today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh no. This is worse than the Epimenides paradox!

So, is Bob a Cretan or a liar? I'm so confused.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm so confused.

Me too.

[mbyron]

Oh. Come. On.

Always listen to Bob. Then Bob says: "Never listen to Bob." What are you going to do?

See? It's worse than the liar claiming that "everything I say is a lie."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Oh. Come. On.

Always listen to Bob. Then Bob says: "Never listen to Bob." What are you going to do?

See? It's worse than the liar claiming that "everything I say is a lie."

I know, you didn't have to spell it out. Dan_ref hasn't been around in a while to need it.