Foul by disqualified player

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

3. The ball becomes dead when the player enters the court. (See 6-7-7).

I'll only quibble about point #3 here. Case 10.4.1e gives us leeway to hold the whistle if the other team is driving for a score. If we change the OP slightly, and B1 has a chance to score, I'm going to let him take his shot before I call the T for coming onto the court.

And, if you want to pile on, you could get A1 for standing, for entering the court, and then for the tackle. Three indirects on the coach.

[Back In The Saddle]

Is there any good reason in the OP to go with two T's? In the case there is a very good reason to, and the commentary on the case indicates that's why the case specifies two T's.

But in the OP...why? Sure, we can. But what useful purpose does it serve?

[Adam]

Dude, I'm already on the fence. Don't do this to me just as I'm considering choosing the other side.

[Back In The Saddle]

Just to throw another wrench or two into the works...

Aren't we supposed to be the calm, disinterested, level-headed ones? I can imagine the opposing coach want 2 or 3 or more T's to teach the kid a lesson. (Well, I can't imagine most coaches as knowing the rules well enough to be able to pick out multiple T-worthy infractions, but I digress...)

Shouldn't we, most than everybody involved, set aside our emotion about the outrageous nature of the act and seek a penalty that is both reasonable and expected, and that fits the crime? Aside from the case play already cited and noted as being a very special case, when else do we assign multiple direct T's to a single person for a single act?

[tjones1]

For that game the second T doesn't matter if it's flagrant or not. I'm sure almost everyone would have to write a report if this happened and the governing body might consider an additional penalty for the second flagrant technical - maybe not.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tjones1

For that game the second T doesn't matter if it's flagrant or not. I'm sure almost everyone would have to write a report if this happened and the governing body might consider an additional penalty for the second flagrant technical - maybe not.

I think it matters whether we assess a flagrant foul. Yes, you'll write a report; and the report will contain details of what happened.

If I were reading a report that mentioned a tackle and no official had assessed a flagrant foul, the inconsistency would disturb me: either the call was right and the report exaggerated the contact, or the report was right and somebody should have assessed a flagrant foul.

Don't you agree that we should call the fouls we see, not the fouls necessary to ensure the correct outcome?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think it matters whether we assess a flagrant foul. Yes, you'll write a report; and the report will contain details of what happened.

If I were reading a report that mentioned a tackle and no official had assessed a flagrant foul, the inconsistency would disturb me: either the call was right and the report exaggerated the contact, or the report was right and somebody should have assessed a flagrant foul.

Don't you agree that we should call the fouls we see, not the fouls necessary to ensure the correct outcome?

Those were my thoughts. I would certainly question whether someone actually got tackled if a flagrant wasn't called if I were reading the game report.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Just to throw another wrench or two into the works...

Aren't we supposed to be the calm, disinterested, level-headed ones? I can imagine the opposing coach want 2 or 3 or more T's to teach the kid a lesson. (Well, I can't imagine most coaches as knowing the rules well enough to be able to pick out multiple T-worthy infractions, but I digress...)

Shouldn't we, most than everybody involved, set aside our emotion about the outrageous nature of the act and seek a penalty that is both reasonable and expected, and that fits the crime? Aside from the case play already cited and noted as being a very special case, when else do we assign multiple direct T's to a single person for a single act?

I submit that the case play and the OP are similar enough that I will apply the principles of the case play to the OP.

[Back In The Saddle]

Good luck with that. The case play does not contain any principles for you to apply. It is a very specific ruling on a very specific situation. In that specific case, if you do not give the two T's, B benefits from their actions by immediately winning the game. Thus the comment following it: "Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act."

Unless the OP involves equally dire and immediate circumstances -- and it does not -- there are no "principles from the case" that apply here.

One illegal act = one penalty.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Good luck with that. The case play does not contain any principles for you to apply. It is a very specific ruling on a very specific situation. In that specific case, if you do not give the two T's, B benefits from their actions by immediately winning the game. Thus the comment following it: "Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act."

Unless the OP involves equally dire and immediate circumstances -- and it does not -- there are no "principles from the case" that apply here.

One illegal act = one penalty.

I'll take my chances. Of course I'm really not too concerned that this will ever happen.