New Interp resulting from OSU/TTU

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No brainer that the athletes should be subject to DQ for encounters with spectators which are way out of line, but the penalty should have nothing to do with where the athlete is standing. Give the officials the discretion to judge the situation solely on the behavior itself, and not be restricted by where it takes place.

Under what is written above a kid who is OOB for a thrown-in and curses at a spectator gets ejected, but one who is one step inbounds and gives him the finger wouldn't get tossed.
What if a kid is inbounds during a timeout and throws a water bottle from the team huddle into the stands?

The NCAA person who wrote this didn't think it through. Very poor construction.

To further your point it also needs to take into account bench personnel.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

To further your point it also needs to take into account bench personnel.

There is clearly cover already to penalize anyone that interacts with bench personnel.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is clearly cover already to penalize anyone that interacts with bench personnel.

Peace

I believe that he meant bench personnel interacting with spectators, not players interacting with bench personnel.

[JRutledge]

I still think we have the authority to penalize anyone participating in the game if they go outside the court and interact with the fans or spectators. I do not think this says we only can do so just because they are a player or on the floor by rule. Could there be other information to clarify this? Sure, but I think this was to address a specific supervisor and his public statements. If he did not make the statement that "I do not think we can eject a player that goes into the stands" this interpretation never comes up IMO.

Peace

[Raymond]

The interp was generated to expand on 10-3.1h, which says:

"Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant noncontact infraction)."

It is not telling us we CAN'T call flagrant fouls for other actions. As JRut said, a supervisor made a comment about why a Technical wasn't call, and the NCAA-M wanted to address that comment.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The interp was generated to expand on 10-3.1h, which says:

"Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant noncontact infraction)."

It is not telling us we CAN'T call flagrant fouls for other actions. As JRut said, a supervisor made a comment about why a Technical wasn't call, and the NCAA-M wanted to address that comment.

I still have to wonder. There was a technical called. Was it called for something he said to the official?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I still have to wonder. There was a technical called. Was it called for something he said to the official?

It appears the T was called right after he came out of the stands. And his teammates were pushing him away. I think the T was for what happened in the stands, but that is a good question.

Peace