Flagrant Fouls

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Tech=Div line opp the table.

Double flagrant technical foul ???

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Double flagrant technical foul ???

A technical foul has little to do with any double foul.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A technical foul has little to do with any double foul.

Sure? Dead ball. Blue 5, and White 4, decide to have a profanity-laced debate. Official charges both with a flagrant technical fouls. It's a double foul so the ball is inbounded at the point of interruption, not at the division line.

I realize that NCAA rules may differ.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sure? Dead ball. Blue 5, and White 4, decide to have a profanity-laced debate. Official charges both with a flagrant technical fouls. It's a double foul so the ball is inbounded at the point of interruption, not at the division line.

I realize that NCAA rules may differ.

His point was all double fouls go to the POI...doesn't matter if it was a double technical foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sure? Dead ball. Blue 5, and White 4, decide to have a profanity-laced debate. Official charges both with a flagrant technical fouls. It's a double foul so the ball is inbounded at the point of interruption, not at the division line.

I realize that NCAA rules may differ.

If you want to be honest just because kids have profanity does not mean it is flagrant in my book and never will be just because I hear a bad word (I can be a smart azz too).

Actually the NCAA rules are exactly the same in this area. APG pretty much got what I was saying.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you want to be honest just because kids have profanity does not mean it is flagrant in my book and never will be just because I hear a bad word.

OK. So instead, they swear at each other, and then both of them tell the official where to shove his whistle after they are both charged with a single technical foul. Two double technical fouls, ejections, point of interruption.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

OK. So instead, they swear at each other, and then both of them tell the official where to shove his whistle after they are both charged with a single technical foul. Two double technical fouls, ejections, point of interruption.

Not to nit-pick this to death, but the part in red is not a double foul because they didn't foul each other. That would be a simultaneous foul (which still goes to the POI).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not to nit-pick this to death, but the part in red is not a double foul because they didn't foul each other. That would be a simultaneous foul (which still goes to the POI).

Not nit-picking. Good point. Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Double flagrant technical foul ???

The OP clearly says "assuming a single foul."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The OP clearly says "assuming a single foul."

I wasn't commenting on the original post. I was commenting on this statement:

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Tech=Div line opp the table

Personal=spot closest to where foul occured

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I wasn't commenting on the original post. I was commenting on this statement:

And he was still correct..especially in the context of the original question. It was only you who started adding silly modifiers to the original question.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Tech=Div line opp the table

Personal=spot closest to where foul occurred

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And he was still correct..especially in the context of the original question. It was only you who started adding silly modifiers to the original question.

AllPurposeGamer: In regard to the original post, you are 100% correct.

However, I still believe that The_Rookie's statement (above), about where to inbound the ball, doesn't work in all cases, and should not be remembered, or memorized, as such, by rookie officials, or veteran officials, for that matter. I once worked with a veteran official, one of our finest, who wanted to inbound the ball at the division line, using the possession arrow, after a double technical foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

AllPurposeGamer: In regard to the original post, you are 100% correct.

However, I still believe that The_Rookie's statement (above), about where to inbound the ball, doesn't work in all cases, and should not be remembered, or memorized, as such, by rookie officials, or veteran officials, for that matter. I once worked with a veteran official, one of our finest, who wanted to inbound the ball at the division line, using the possession arrow, after a double technical foul.

Then they need to read the rules on what we do on every single double foul (not associated with a false version of course) and what POI is. Also the college level rules are different and many people try to apply the college level rules to high school games. We can play the semantics game all day, but every Technical Foul goes to the division line after the FTs. I would not call a Technical Foul a Double Technical Foul.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Every Technical Foul goes to the division line after the FTs.

Agreed. Sounds good to me.

If there are no free throws, then that's a different story, for another night. Goodnight moon.

And JRutledge, I would never try to comment on college level rules. I know more about paratransgenesis than I know about college level officiating.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I once worked with a veteran official, one of our finest, who wanted to inbound the ball at the division line, using the possession arrow, after a double technical foul.

And once upon a time, he would have been correct.