Resume play

[tref]

B1 intenionally fouls A1 in the act of shooting a successful 3. A1 shoves B1 after the foul.
Ruling NCAA-M?

[Adam]

I would only be guessing.

[Indianaref]

I'd be guessing too... I think you shoot the tech first and remsume POI which is the IF.

[26 Year Gap]

I think that you might just have avoided OT.

[Back In The Saddle]

Resuming play after a contact technical in NCAA-M is by a throw-in at the division line. However, in this false double foul scenario, I'm not sure if you handle the T using POI and resume play as normal for the INT.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by tref

B1 intenionally fouls A1 in the act of shooting a successful 3. A1 shoves B1 after the foul.
Ruling NCAA-M?

Same as in NFHS.

1) Score the 3-point basket.
2) Award 2 free throws to A1 for the intentional foul with lane spaces unoccupied.
3) Award 2 free throws to any member of Team B for the dead ball contact technical foul (NCAA-M) or intentional technical (NFHS) with the lane spaces unoccupied.
4) Award a throw-in to Team B at the division line.


Differences between NCAA-M and NFHS:

1) Whoever shoots the free throws for Team B must attempt both free throws in NCAA. (In NFHS, a different player may attempt the second throw.)

2) In NCAA-M, the throw-in may be at the division line on either side of the court. In NFHS, it must be opposite the table.

[tref]

Thanks! Now say A1 threw the ball at B1 after the shooting foul... would that be considered dead ball contact or is that simply an unsporting dead ball technical?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tref

Thanks! Now say A1 threw the ball at B1 after the shooting foul... would that be considered dead ball contact or is that simply an unsporting dead ball technical?

I'm looking for the "contact" in this scenario.

[tref]

When the ball went oops upside his head there was plenty of contact, but I'm thinking dead ball contact has to be one phsically touching another & not an object??

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tref

When the ball went oops upside his head there was plenty of contact, but I'm thinking dead ball contact has to be one phsically touching another & not an object??

Yes, that is my understanding. Chucking the ball at an opponent would certainly be an unsporting foul, perhaps flagrant, and if it resulted in a fight you could argue that the act constitutes fighting. But it wouldn't be a dead ball contact technical.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yes, that is my understanding. Chucking the ball at an opponent would certainly be an unsporting foul, perhaps flagrant, and if it resulted in a fight you could argue that the act constitutes fighting. But it wouldn't be a dead ball contact technical.

What if, as I had happen during a game last year, a player uses the ball as a weapon and intentionally clubs her opponent in the face with it while in her hands?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

What if, as I had happen during a game last year, a player uses the ball as a weapon and intentionally clubs her opponent in the face with it while in her hands?

Flagrant T, but still non-contact (only relevant during live ball or with NCAA rules.)

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

(only relevant during live ball or with NCAA rules.)

Right...I assumed it would be appropriate to discuss for either.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Right...I assumed it would be appropriate to discuss for either.

Didn't mean to imply it wasn't appropriate, just pointing out that while there's a difference between the two (contact and non-contact flagrant Ts), the enforcement is typically the same.