Technical Foul Procedure

[cmhjordan23]

I know some rules are different in college vs highschool. Why is the technical foul procedure different. Watching Ohio St. vs Northwestern. Foul called on Northwestern on the ground. Then a technical foul. They shoot the technical free throws then the 1 and 1 freethrows. In high school they shoot bonus, then technical, then team receives ball based on order of occcurence. I know they do things differently, but why?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cmhjordan23

I know some rules are different in college vs highschool. Why is the technical foul procedure different. Watching Ohio St. vs Northwestern. Foul called on Northwestern on the ground. Then a technical foul. They shoot the technical free throws then the 1 and 1 freethrows. In high school they shoot bonus, then technical, then team receives ball based on order of occcurence. I know they do things differently, but why?

If the team on offense commits a T, they lose the ball (and the other team shoots FTs). If the team on defense commits a T, it's just the FTs.

The college rules makers decided that wasn't "fair" so, in general, it's "shoot the T and resume at POI."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The college rules makers decided that wasn't "fair" so, in general, it's "shoot the T and resume at POI."

It also depends on what kind of T that is called at the NCAA Men's level that might not be the case on the Women's side. There are a couple where they do not go to POI.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

The NBE has a procedure that really defines the "role" of a technical foul in a game. When one is called, the game stops, they take care of the technical, then pick the game up where it was at the time. The theory is that a technical foul is a penalty for something that takes place "outside" the purview of the game so it is treated that way. Whether the penalty should be one shot or two is another subject.

I read a long time ago that this was the thinking behind how their rule came into being. I'm guessing it's been that way pretty much ever since the league started.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

The NBE has a procedure that really defines the "role" of a technical foul in a game. When one is called, the game stops, they take care of the technical, then pick the game up where it was at the time. The theory is that a technical foul is a penalty for something that takes place "outside" the purview of the game so it is treated that way. Whether the penalty should be one shot or two is another subject.

I read a long time ago that this was the thinking behind how their rule came into being. I'm guessing it's been that way pretty much ever since the league started.

And the high school philosophy was completely different. The NFHS rulesmakers changed the penalty to 2 FT's and the ball so that the harsher penalty would act as a deterrence to unsporting acts. The idea was that if you were going to give up 2 free throws and the ball, you might think about it before doing something unsporting. The NCAA softening that penalty lowers that deterrence aspect. Who knows whether the NFHS rulesmakers will change their philosophy to follow too.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And the high school philosophy was completely different. The NFHS rulesmakers changed the penalty to 2 FT's and the ball so that the harsher penalty would act as a deterrence to unsporting acts. The idea was that if you were going to give up 2 free throws and the ball, you might think about it before doing something unsporting. The NCAA softening that penalty lowers that deterrence aspect. Who knows whether the NFHS rulesmakers will change their philosophy to follow too.

I was under the impression the NCAA "softened" the penalty so that officials would be more inclined to make the call. I believe the prevailing opinion among officials was the penalty was harsh (2 FT's and loss of possession in many cases), so they wanted to reserve the call for the most egregious of acts. I thought I remembered reading that the rules committee changed it so officials would be a little more inclined to make the proper call.

I haven't seen any POE's from the Fed. regarding needing to call more T's, or do a better job of penalizing behavior. I would assume if I had, it would be more likely they would consider lessening the penalty for the same reason the NCAA did. Jmo.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I was under the impression the NCAA "softened" the penalty so that officials would be more inclined to make the call. I believe the prevailing opinion among officials was the penalty was harsh (2 FT's and loss of possession in many cases), so they wanted to reserve the call for the most egregious of acts. I thought I remembered reading that the rules committee changed it so officials would be a little more inclined to make the proper call.

I haven't seen any POE's from the Fed. regarding needing to call more T's, or do a better job of penalizing behavior. I would assume if I had, it would be more likely they would consider lessening the penalty for the same reason the NCAA did. Jmo.

I think the reason for the change was more along the lines of what Mark suggest....even consequences whether you have the ball or not. There was no need for most T-worthy offenses to be considered worse if you had the ball.

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I was under the impression the NCAA "softened" the penalty so that officials would be more inclined to make the call. I believe the prevailing opinion among officials was the penalty was harsh (2 FT's and loss of possession in many cases), so they wanted to reserve the call for the most egregious of acts. I thought I remembered reading that the rules committee changed it so officials would be a little more inclined to make the proper call.

I haven't seen any POE's from the Fed. regarding needing to call more T's, or do a better job of penalizing behavior. I would assume if I had, it would be more likely they would consider lessening the penalty for the same reason the NCAA did. Jmo.

When I was a sponge, at camp early in my career, were we told that if you have a pending T on the offense, and if you can, delay it until they turn the ball over (or score), so that they are not losing a possession.

I remember asking, off the cuff, if I should raise my arm for a delayed penalty like in hockey.

[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.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

+1

Logical imo.

Wouldnt mind seeing that itself.