Interesting End of Game Sequence

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How will a warning help here? Warn him, make him put his shirt back on, tuck it in, and if, and only if, he does it again in that game, then it's alright to charge him with a technical foul?

I guess the athletic director needs same help from the Mythbusters.

Forget the Mythubusters and just use the rules. Case book play 10.4.1SitD is the exact same play. Immediate technical foul with no warning. Note that if the head coach had been notified of the disqualification before the kid pulled his crap, the head coach would have been charged with an indirect "T" also.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Forget the Mythubusters and just use the rules. Case book play 10.4.1SitD is the exact same play. Immediate technical foul with no warning. Note that if the head coach had been notified of the disqualification before the kid pulled his crap, the head coach would have been charged with an indirect "T" also.

Just to clarify...

"strip-tease" gets T for behavior, and coach gets an indirect for failing to control player? 4 shots and ball at division line?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Just to clarify...

"strip-tease" gets T for behavior, and coach gets an indirect for failing to control player? 4 shots and ball at division line?

After coach is notified, disqualified player is now bench personnel. So the T on the player is charged as an indirect on the coach. No free throws for an indirect..........ever.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

After coach is notified, disqualified player is now bench personnel. So the T on the player is charged as an indirect on the coach. No free throws for an indirect..........ever.

Interesting. Player is already DQ'd so you charge coach with indirect T and does this count towards team fouls?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Interesting. Player is already DQ'd so you charge coach with indirect T and does this count towards team fouls?

Are you an official? And you are totally unfamiliar with an indirect technical?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Interesting. Player is already DQ'd so you charge coach with indirect T and does this count towards team fouls?

The T on the player is the foul that is added to the team foul total. The indirect on the coach is not a separate foul. You just shoot two free throws.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The T on the player is the foul that is added to the team foul total. The indirect on the coach is not a separate foul. You just shoot two free throws.

There we go... thats what I was looking for. Still shooting 2 and the ball for the DQ'd player's T. I misread "not shooting.....ever" Not shooting on the indirect T for coach I get you now.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

There we go... thats what I was looking for. Still shooting 2 and the ball for the DQ'd player's T. I misread "not shooting.....ever" Not shooting on the indirect T for coach I get you now.

An indirect is one infraction recorded against the coach in addition to the culprit(s). Being only one infraction, there is only one pair of FTs awarded and only one team foul recorded.

[Rich]

The AD's opinion means just as much as the guy's in the 12th row.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Forget the Mythubusters.

Originally Posted by mbyron

We don't make shots, score goals, or foul opponents. Those are the actions that affect the outcome the game.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's the players' actions that determine the game. Making the calls that need to be made does not affect the game.

Originally Posted by mbyron

But good officiating is simply observing and reporting: the players' actions are the primary determinant of the outcome when officials enforce the rules and penalties properly.

From the files of the Mythbusters.

Players commit fouls and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From the files of the Mythbusters.

Players commit fouls and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty.

Forget the Mythbusters.

From the NFHS rule book re: THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE RULES...

A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jurassic referee

forget the mythbusters.

[/i]

+1

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Forget the Mythbusters.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

+1

So, you don't believe that it's a myth that officials can determine the outcome of a game? I think that mbyron, and Snaqwells (see above), think it's a myth.

It is my opinion that many fans, players, and coaches, believe that officials determine the outcome of a game. Officials know that it's only a myth. No different than fans yelling three seconds when the ball is still in the backcourt. This "outcome of the game" myth should not be ignored. It needs to be "busted".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, you don't believe that it's a myth that officials can determine the outcome of a game? I think that mbyron, and Snaqwells (see above), think it's a myth.

It is my opinion that many fans, players, and coaches, believe that officials determine the outcome of a game. Officials know that it's only a myth. No different than fans yelling three seconds when the ball is still in the backcourt. This "outcome of the game" myth should not be ignored. It needs to be "busted".

He's just saying the "myth busters" schtick is getting old from overuse. I'm not saying he's right, but I'm just sayin'...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He's just saying the "myth busters" schtick is getting old from overuse. I'm not saying he's right, but I'm just sayin'...

The Forum keeps getting the same mythological questions from newbies, players, coaches, and fanboys, all the time. The list was a group effort. It's just a simple way to answer these type of questions. Just a simple copy and paste. Boring? Yes. But so are some of the mythological questions we get, on the Forum, and in real life. What's wrong with having a little fun with the same old, same old, questions by using the same old, same old, Mythbusters list?