Technical Foul Procedure

[Mark Padgett]

If I remember correctly (and at my age, that happens rarely) the Fed rule of two shots plus possession was discussed here a few years ago on a thread about proposed rule changes. I suggested taking away the possession part since it "penalized" the offense more than the defense (as discussed above in this thread). However, someone - I think it might have been Camron - brought up the issue of comparing a technical to a standard shooting foul in which the teams lined up on the lane. In that case, the non-shooting team always has an advantage because they have the two players who are in the most advantageous rebounding position. I'm not saying the argument was that technicals should be shot with players along the lane, but that there was some kind of "balance" explained in the thread that made the possession component of the penalty seem to actually be fairer than not including it because of that "rebounding" theory.

I don't think I really explained it properly here (I said it was from a few years ago) but maybe someone else might remember it and explain it more clearly.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

If I remember correctly (and at my age, that happens rarely) the Fed rule of two shots plus possession was discussed here a few years ago on a thread about proposed rule changes. I suggested taking away the possession part since it "penalized" the offense more than the defense (as discussed above in this thread). However, someone - I think it might have been Camron - brought up the issue of comparing a technical to a standard shooting foul in which the teams lined up on the lane. In that case, the non-shooting team always has an advantage because they have the two players who are in the most advantageous rebounding position. I'm not saying the argument was that technicals should be shot with players along the lane, but that there was some kind of "balance" explained in the thread that made the possession component of the penalty seem to actually be fairer than not including it because of that "rebounding" theory.

I don't think I really explained it properly here (I said it was from a few years ago) but maybe someone else might remember it and explain it more clearly.

I'm not sure if I'm following you, but are you advocating that the penalty for a T be more "balanced"? I actually prefer your original description about the NBA, where a technical foul is "outside" the game itself, and should be penalized as such. I might be able to live with a compromise where administrative T's be treated similar to NCAA (FT's, then POI, or even FT"s with players lined up), but unsporting T's should continue to have the harsher penalty of losing possession, due to the fact it *might* help discourage such behavior.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I might be able to live with a compromise where administrative T's be treated similar to NCAA (FT's, then POI, or even FT"s with players lined up), but unsporting T's should continue to have the harsher penalty of losing possession, due to the fact it *might* help discourage such behavior.

+1

Logical imo.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

+1

Logical imo.

Wouldnt mind seeing that itself.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

but unsporting T's should continue to have the harsher penalty of losing possession

I think the point was that, under FED rules, a T called against a team when they are on offense does also makes them lose possession but a T called against a team when they are on defense does not because they didn't have possession in the first place. The old thread to which I referred made the point that if there wasn't a "possession loss" attached to the penalty against a defensive team, then they would have less of a penalty because they would have rebounding advantage if the foul was just a "normal" foul and not a T against them - or something like that. Like I said, it was years ago when this was brought up and I don't really remember the specifics of the point that was trying to be made.