Singler Elbow to Hansbrough's Jaw
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFeSOjYfdU

If the elbow to Hansbrough was deemed accidental should it be a T?

No.

Its either flagrant or incidental. Especially during a live ball.

It could be intentional. It does not have to be flagrant.

And since this was a dead ball, it can only be called if it is intentional or flagrant.

Peace

The ball was dead. So I would have to either deem it intentional or flagrant, right?

What you have here is an Intentional Technical foul.

The ball is dead due to the ruling of the jump ball. When a contact foul is made when the ball is dead, it is automatically an "intentional technical foul." It does not matter if the officials ruled the foul accidental or not. 2 shots for the offended team and they get the ball at the half-court. There is no POI in this situation.

If IMO it was accidental (as in his hand slipped off the ball when he was trying to pull the ball away) I've got nothing?

Agree you can't call it a technical during a live ball, but you could still call it a common personal foul. You could still call it an intentional foul (if it's severe enough contact) even if you don't think it was done "on purpose".

If the ball is dead, you can call this a technical foul. Looked to me at first glance that it wasn't accidental.

But to say it's either flagrant or incidental is incorrect.

So if I have A1 dribbling and I call B1 for a hold right at the time that B2 is coming up to double team him and B2 bumps A1 after the whistle its a T?

Well it does matter. If the officials rule this accidental or (better language) incidental, then it is nothing. This is only a foul if the official’s rule (a dead ball) intentional or flagrant. If it is not ruled that way, it is incidental contact and should be passed on.

Peace

That's the case in NFHS...not sure if its the same or if the ruling is different in NCAAM. Maybe some of the college officials who post can help us out? :D

I'm just wondering why the officials didn't go to the monitor to confirm the elbow (which I'm sure the C saw). It was my understanding that any punch/elbow needed to be review with a monitor to make sure it wasn't thrown intentionally.

I remember a case where an official ejected a player where he thought the player threw a punch. He did not review the play on the monitor. The replay showed that the player did not throw a punch and was unjustly ejected. A memo from that conference came down that all possible punches/elbows were to be reviewed. Unfortunately the official who ejected the player was suspended for one game.

I agree with you assessment that incidental contact should be ignored; I do not think that the elbow was incidental. But a common foul (such as a slap on the arm that neither intentional or flagrant) during a dead ball is still an intentional technical foul; do we agree?

If I think that thatwas intentional then I am going flagrant. There is no way that i will look at an elbow thrown and made contact intentionally as just an intentional foul. In this case I would either have a no call or an ejection.

I can't view YouTube at work. But Singler did receive an Intentional Technical foul last night and NC took the ball out at half court. Was this the play or a different one? I wasn't paying close attention to the TV but wasn't Singler's T after some kind of scrum for a loose ball?

1. No. It could be a flagrant T. And not all contact when the ball is dead is a foul (ignored if not flagrant or intentional).

2. If the contact was "accidental" in the sense of not intentional or flagrant, then it does matter: don't call the foul.

3. There is always a POI on every whistle, though it is not always relevant to how to put the ball back in play.

Why could it not be a Flagrant Technical? ;)

Peace

(The below ignores the "airborne shooter" possibility since it's not relevant to the play.)

Your terms are very confusing. You can't have a "common foul" during a dead ball.

Contact during a dead ball is IGNORED unless it's intentional or flagrant. Then, it's either an IT or FT foul.

Your "slap on the arm" would most likely be ignored. (I'm talking about the rule; as officials we might address the situation without calling a foul.)

For NCAA Men only they can go to the monitor to determine if a called foul is flagrant. They do not have to go -

In NCAA women it a punch is thrown/ or an action could possibly be a fight you must go to the monitor to make that determination but you may not up grade a foul that has been called to flagrant.

No. For dead ball contact to be called, it must be either intentional of flagrant.

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.

BB ref is correct. The ball was given to Duke at the division line, tableside (I believe).

Because the play was blown dead on the jump ball, they went to the AP arrow.

-Josh

I believe it's because they go to POI in NCAA after a technical.

Edit: jdmara just clarified.

I am a Carolina fan, but I think the contact was incidental. He was pulling really hard on the ball, hand slips - hence the elbow.

Now he probably shouldnt have been pulling so hard on the ball, because of the whistle.

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

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.

NCAA 4-53-1e

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

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.

The elbow was anything but incidental. It was properly called a technical foul since the ball was dead following the call for a held ball. Since the contact was "intentional or flagrant" it should be penalized by a Technical Foul (under NFHS rules).

But a slap on the arm or other non-intentional, non-flagrant contact is to be ignored under such circumstances. Therefore, no, a technical foul should not be called for non-intentional, non-flagrant contact -- it is to be ignored.

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

If you're not going to call the slap on the arm an INT or FLAG foul during a live ball, why would you do it during a dead ball?

Because by definition, a contact foul that is not flagrant during a dead ball is considered an intentional technical foul.

PLEASE read pg 152 in the NCAA 2008-09 rulebook.

Foul Name: (Men) Intentional Technical Foul
Ball Status: Dead
Description: Contact with opponent in non-flagrant manner
Penalty: Two Free Throws
Charged to: Offending player
Resumption of play: Throw-in to offended team at division line.
Count toward DQ?: Yes
Count for bonus?: Yes
Count toward Ejection?: Yes, one of two CLASS A (AA) technicals or in combination with two CLASS B technicals (ABB).

Any more questions?

So you're saying that ALL contact during a dead ball is a foul. :(

Okay. Good luck with that.

BBRef-

I guess the best part about the internet is that we are all learning. I'm learning more and more that some people choose not to learn. Anytime you want to partner up, let me know :rolleyes:

-Josh

No, contact that is deemed a foul during a dead ball is an intentional technical foul.

Please show me where I said all contact during a dead ball is a foul?

Exactly. That's what we've been trying to tell you. :(

Yet, you still say a little bump or slap on the arm immediately after a whistle is an intentional foul?

Again, good luck.

If the contact was enough to be a foul, by definition it would be called an intentional technical foul.

No, not really.

As far as Fed goes, it says the contact must be intentional or flagrant to be called a foul, otherwise it is ignored. (With the airborne shooter exception) This is implying that there are times when there might be contact during a dead ball that would be a common foul if the ball were live, but it should be ignored during a dead ball if it wouldn't be intentional when the ball is live.

Most are learning. Others are stubborn. :)

Text me, we'll hook up for a game. :D

You can do what you wish, but what you suggest is in direct opposition to the rules and to how most (I'll go with 99.5%) other officials would call this.

I think it's obvious they kicked it. I've emailed an ACC observer and await his response but I think the rules are clear.

Think about it this way.

An intentional personal foul results in two FTs and the ball.

Why would an intentional technical foul result in two shots but not give the ball to the offended team?

This I know...I'll let you know about some games. I need a little vacation, so why not to NC

-Josh

Heard on the grapevine that there was disagreement among the officials as to the proper treatment and you can see confusion when they were about to bring the ball inbounds - originally looks like one of them was going to take it in on the baseline then moved to half court. By that point, Duke was lining up to take it in - rather than drag it out any further the official who knew the right way rolled with it....

That's interesting. 2 Final Four officials and a 3rd who is a D2 conference supervisor. If those 3 can't come to a consesus on the right thing to do no wonder we have so many arguments in this forum. :cool:

disagreement is going to cost them
 

If that is the case - then I would imagine that there will be loss of game(s) or game fees involved because you just can not kick a rule like that with out some consequences

There is no way this is accidental...it has to be a technical foul.

Oh no. This is worse than the Epimenides paradox!

Wikipedia May Have To Shut Down ...
 

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

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

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

That's What's So Great About mbyron's Posts, They Make You Think ...
 

Me too.

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.

OK, but I wasn't responding for your edification (alone). :D

Rules Sec response
 

I asked the NCAA about the situation in this game and the response I got about what transpired was this ...
" The explanation received was that a CLASS A technical foul was assessed for vulgar language and the ball was improperly put into play.

Obviously, the flagrant foul was missed by the three officials but seen by many others."