T before the toss

In HS the offended team always gets the ball, division line opposite the table after 2 FTs. So no jump ball takes place.

Does anyone know what the procedure is for NCAA & Pro?

[Adam]

NCAA will depend on which class of T.
Not sure about pro.

How about NCAA administrative & unsporting?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

How about NCAA administrative & unsporting?

Jump ball.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Jump ball.

So shoot 2 & POI for both sides of the NCAA?

Sounds like the same procedure as the league minus a FT.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

So shoot 2 & POI for both sides of the NCAA?

Sounds like the same procedure as the league minus a FT.

Apply the T just as you would if the T occurred at any other point in the game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Does anyone know what the procedure is for NCAA & Pro?

Pro what?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Pro what?

Plumbers.

[Back In The Saddle]

In HS, if you have a double T, then you go to POI. Which, in this case, would be the jump ball.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Pro what?

Umm basketball...

But I got it, thanks.

Whenever a technical foul is called, play is resumed at the point where it was suspended.

So you would still have a jump ball after the T in the league, but not in HS unless it was a double T.

Now if I could get a little NCAA help please.

[Hugh Refner]

This is one of those rare cases in which I like the NBA rule. They view a technical foul as behavior that takes place "outside" the actual playing of the game. Because of that perception, they then "suspend" the game, take care of the technical, then pick the game up from where it was stopped.

I really think this is a rational approach to the game. I guess they feel that having the offended team shoot a free throw (I would still support two shots in NF) is enough of a punishment. Of course, they will still eject someone if it's really flagrant.

Having a rule like the NF does, where the offended team gets the shots and possession is not balanced. If the T is against the offensive team, they lose shots and possession. However, if the T is against the defensive team, they just lose shots because they didn't have possession in the first place. Why should there be more of a penalty if a team was on offense?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

If the T is against the offensive team, they lose shots and possession. However, if the T is against the defensive team, they just lose shots because they didn't have possession in the first place. Why should there be more of a penalty if a team was on offense?

And that is different from a common foul how? B1 holds A1 and A just gets the ball out of bounds; no real penalty, they already had the ball. A1 holds B1 and A loses possession.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LDUB

And that is different from a common foul how? B1 holds A1 and A just gets the ball out of bounds; no real penalty, they already had the ball. A1 holds B1 and A loses possession.

This is somewhat equalized by the bonus and team control rules.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

Having a rule like the NF does, where the offended team gets the shots and possession is not balanced. If the T is against the offensive team, they lose shots and possession. However, if the T is against the defensive team, they just lose shots because they didn't have possession in the first place. Why should there be more of a penalty if a team was on offense?

Which, I believe, was the biggest impetus for introducing the team control foul into HS basketball. I arguably makes the penalties less unequal, at least in some cases.

The same issue exists with free throw violations. If the offense violates, they lose a shot and possibly the ball. If the defense violates, the offense gets another shot if they miss. If they both violate, the penalty is harsher on the offense.

Now that you've uncovered the deep, dark secret we've been hiding from the media and the voting public, how would you change things to make it more fair?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Now that you've uncovered the deep, dark secret we've been hiding from the media and the voting public, how would you change things to make it more fair?

Hasn't it been established during discussions about Correctable Errors that the rules are not necessarily intended to be fair?