Surely there must have been disconcertion on one of the FTs.:D

I am referring to 9-2-10. The book states that, "repeated" violations of that rule are a "Player Technical" according to 10-3-5.d.

If my interpretation is correct, that means it's a team foul after the first couple of delay infractions, but if it continues "repeatedly" (good luck finding a consensus on what that means) a player technical could be assessed.

At any rate, in any game we officiate there is subjectivity. I don't know why some won't admit that there are times they will/won't whack somebody based on the situation and all the surrounding factors. Of course it's vitally important to know and officiate the rules as they are written, but we're decieving ourselves if we say there is no element of subjective human judgement.

How is my situation any different from passing on a soft "and-one" in the interest of continuing game flow? Or erring on the side of the team that's trailing 30 points on a 50-50 or 60-40 call?

We do it every night gentlemen...

The penalty for the 2nd DOG violation is a team technical foul (10-1-5c, 9-2-10 penalty 2). 10-3-5d gives us leeway to call a player T if B1 keeps doing it. Frankly, if I'm even considering this, he's done it at least twice in a row and will be warned. If he runs through that warning, then I'd be happy to have him sit for 20 minutes. That's very much a sportsmanship issue.

As for letting the soft "and one" (I hate that phrase) go, that's a matter of determining advantage. If the shooter is contacted and it doesn't noticeably affect his shot, it's not a foul. That's a whole different issue.

As for the blowout calls, that's local. There are some high level officials in here who never do it; I know some high level officials that do.

Do game situations come into play when I call a T? Sure, they'll certainly come into play if I sense a situation brewing and think I can difuse it. I don't think that hard about my Ts, though, so the last thing I need to do is wonder whether the penalty is too severe.

If you want them to change, call the T when the next kid slaps the ball in the OOB thrower's hands, making him sit 20 minutes. They'll change it then.

And here is the crux of the whole issue, IMO.

We can talk all we want about iron-clad consistency, eliminating personal philosophies, etc.

But, at the end of the day, we all make our subjective judgements about items big and small. Every single one of us.

I suppose the goal should be to learn how that judgement process works for the very best officials.

Making those calls in a way that improves the game and manages the situation most effectively is probably what sets them apart from me to begin with :D

I think the call for consistency is a pipe dream of people like Nevada when it comes to certain issues. The NFHS can cry all they want, but unless local assigners buy in, it won't do any good.

Personally, I wouldn't change the way I call Ts in your game based on the added penalty, but that's me. If you have an issue, you might want to contact that particular league and see if they want you to be more cautious in dishing out Ts.

The penalty by the league should not factor into your decision. A technical foul is a technical foul and should be penalized as such. Slamming the ball down because he is mad at a teammate is unfortunate, but when the ball flies 20 feet, that player is only drawing attention to himself and didn't leave you much of a choice it sounds like.

By the way, the very issue that started this, slamming the ball, isn't consistently called a T either. Some officials will get it every time, others will talk to the player; particularly if it's obvious his frustration is self-directed.

There's a difference between managing a game and calling (or not) something based on league administration issues.

Give the T if it's earned, and if it's not worthy of a suspension, then let the player / coach appeal it to the league.