Murphy's Law in Mass

[amusedofficial]

Afriend from Massachusetts sent me this link.
Playoff game, kid gets a T for breaking the plane, itg it's a T I assume for touching the ball during a throw-in. Gets whacked again, apparently for unsporting conduct. Officials let kid play despite technicals, he scores 21 in a 16 point win. State association has some sort of rule where ejection brings automatic suspension, so not only was good for the game where he got called, he's good for the next game unless state group invokes its authority to levy suspension.

Sounds like crawl in a cave stuff to me.

English boys pull away to reach Division 1 North semifinals

[Jurassic Referee]

If the story is correct, it sounds like the officials mistakenly assessed a team "T" for touching the ball in the thrower's hands instead of correctly charging the "T" to the player.

But....sometimes these stories aren't factual.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If the story is correct, it sounds like the officials mistakenly assessed a team "T" for touching the ball in the thrower's hands instead of correctly charging the "T" to the player.

But....sometimes these stories aren't factual.

What JR said.......

It's possible that the T was for breaking the plane after a previous team warning for delay, in which case it is a team technical and not charged to the individual.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

It's possible that the T was for breaking the plane after a previous team warning for delay, in which case it is a team technical and not charged to the individual.

What TimTaylor said......

You never really know with newspaper accounts.

[just another ref]

Why would the officials call so many fouls? Don't they understand about "offensive flow?"

[Camron Rust]

...or he contacted the thrower for an intentional foul instead of a technical foul and the writer didn't know the difference.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...or he contacted the thrower for an intentional foul instead of a technical foul and the writer didn't know the difference.

Since it was only the 1st quarter this seems very plausible.

[Amesman]

Seems kinda odd that only the assistant coach is quoted. Thought I was eventually going to read the head coach was tossed.

[amusedofficial]

Got more details. The fouls were for 1) unsporting conduct and 2)for touching or dislodging the ball on a throw-in. Apparently the calling official said he didn't want to eject the kid for the second T so he didn't! The state association has a rule that disqualification for two technicals means a suspension, so they rsuspended him for the next playoff game anyway.

This all apparently happened in the first quarter and the kid went on to score a boatload. The opposing coach must be beside himself.

Tournament officials, too.

[Adam]

From whom did you get those details?

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Apparently the calling official said he didn't want to eject the kid for the second T so he didn't! T

Found the applicable rule:

10-3-PENALTY-NOTE-EXCEPTION: If the official who charges a single flagrant technical foul or the second technical foul isn't in the mood to disqualify the offending player, then 10-3-PENALTY-NOTE doesn't apply, and the player may continue playing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Got more details. The fouls were for 1) unsporting conduct and 2)for touching or dislodging the ball on a throw-in. Apparently the calling official said he didn't want to eject the kid for the second T so he didn't! The state association has a rule that disqualification for two technicals means a suspension, so they suspended him for the next playoff game anyway.

This all apparently happened in the first quarter and the kid went on to score a boatload. The opposing coach must be beside himself.

Tournament officials, too.

Oh my.......

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Found the applicable rule:

10-3-PENALTY-NOTE-EXCEPTION: If the official who charges a single flagrant technical foul or the second technical foul isn't in the mood to disqualify the offending player, then 10-3-PENALTY-NOTE doesn't apply, and the player may continue playing.

I'm in a particularly gullible mood this morning and don't have my books in the office; I assume this is a joke lol...

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Got more details. The fouls were for 1) unsporting conduct and 2)for touching or dislodging the ball on a throw-in. Apparently the calling official said he didn't want to eject the kid for the second T so he didn't! The state association has a rule that disqualification for two technicals means a suspension, so they rsuspended him for the next playoff game anyway.

This all apparently happened in the first quarter and the kid went on to score a boatload. The opposing coach must be beside himself.

Tournament officials, too.

Can you get a follow up on this? In my neck of the woods, that official could be toast for any tournament games in the coming years.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Can you get a follow up on this? In my neck of the woods, that official could be toast for any tournament games in the coming years.

If true, that might be correct for most necks of the woods.

The bottom line is that you should just follow the rules in cases like this. Never inject your own personal beliefs. Let the governing body decide what they want to do next. That's their job, not our's.

JMO....