Wofford/NC State–Gottfried technical foul (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by acgod24

Curious to see what everyone thought of the aftermath. He stuck with the T then during the timeout comes all the way out to the opposite side of the floor still "jawing" at Hess. I thought the other 2 officials did a good job of getting in front of him just wondering how some officials would handle this in an NFHS game

In a HS game, coach doesn't get past the outer boundary of his huddle before I'm walking him back.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Somebody point me back toward where in a book (I'd love an NCAA-W book(s) reference, but anything will do) to where the case plays for "the official shall wait until the layup is successful/unsuccessful to assess the technical foul, yadayada" is supported by a rule reference that contradicts:

"Art. 2. A live ball shall not become dead when a foul is committed by an opponent of a player who starts a try for goal before a foul occurs, provided that time does not expire before the ball is in flight."

Haven't thought about that in a couple of years, can't find things, and want to know where that lives, so that I can explain how the cited rule doesn't for some reason include the HC as an "opponent."

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Somebody point me back toward where in a book (I'd love an NCAA-W book(s) reference, but anything will do) to where the case plays for "the official shall wait until the layup is successful/unsuccessful to assess the technical foul, yadayada" is supported by a rule reference that contradicts:

"Art. 2. A live ball shall not become dead when a foul is committed by an opponent of a player who starts a try for goal before a foul occurs, provided that time does not expire before the ball is in flight."

Haven't thought about that in a couple of years, can't find things, and want to know where that lives, so that I can explain how the cited rule doesn't for some reason include the HC as an "opponent."

Closest thing in the current books is this, though it is a bit of a stretch...fairly sure there used to be a case that involved an unsporting T on the HC,

Rule: 9.3.3


9.3.3 SITUATION D:

The score is tied 60 to 60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.

RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption.

COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

[Pantherdreams]

I didn't "see" anything that I deemed T worthy on the tape. Particularly at an NCAA men's level where coaches often walk out onto the floor during dead balls and use profanity at their players and in the direction of officials all the time. To be fair after the first t he said "That's bull$#!&" and there was no reaction so the idea that he's being penalized for profanity is off base anyway. I'm also not considering emphatic clapping in a gym with a few thousand hostile cheering fans to be excessive either though.

Now he could have quietly or even politely call out the integrity of an official. Made a personal remark or refernence. He could have even used any of the non profane magic words "cheater . . . cheating . . .idiot . . .blind . . .etc etc." but they would probably be enough to earn him a T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Somebody point me back toward where in a book (I'd love an NCAA-W book(s) reference, but anything will do) to where the case plays for "the official shall wait until the layup is successful/unsuccessful to assess the technical foul, yadayada" is supported by a rule reference that contradicts:

"Art. 2. A live ball shall not become dead when a foul is committed by an opponent of a player who starts a try for goal before a foul occurs, provided that time does not expire before the ball is in flight."

Haven't thought about that in a couple of years, can't find things, and want to know where that lives, so that I can explain how the cited rule doesn't for some reason include the HC as an "opponent."

Found it.

Case 10.4.1 F

Originally Posted by Rule Book

A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle the situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess ...a technical foul....

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Adam

Found it.

Case 10.4.1 F

Totally get that reference, and have a similar case play in another book, but again - and this is likely my being overly cerebral about it - but that doesn't necessarily provide a reference of rule or reference by direct follow-up statement in the case play that allows for a direct contradiction of the rule that states the ball does not become dead when an opponent commits a foul after the try has begun. Does what I'm trying to describe make sense? In other words, that case play says "the official should do this," but it doesn't then explain how that's okay or the proper thing to do by rule. One could interpret that case play last sentence to mean that "the official should wait to blow the whistle to assess the foul because the official needs to have game awareness of what's going on because the whistle could disrupt the shooter's concentration on the try."

In other words, the case play says that "this is the way the call should be made," but not that "by rule the whistle for a technical foul against an opponent causes the ball to become dead on a try that's begun."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Totally get that reference, and have a similar case play in another book, but again - and this is likely my being overly cerebral about it - but that doesn't necessarily provide a reference of rule or reference by direct follow-up statement in the case play that allows for a direct contradiction of the rule that states the ball does not become dead when an opponent commits a foul after the try has begun. Does what I'm trying to describe make sense? In other words, that case play says "the official should do this," but it doesn't then explain how that's okay or the proper thing to do by rule. One could interpret that case play last sentence to mean that "the official should wait to blow the whistle to assess the foul because the official needs to have game awareness of what's going on because the whistle could disrupt the shooter's concentration on the try."

In other words, the case play says that "this is the way the call should be made," but not that "by rule the whistle for a technical foul against an opponent causes the ball to become dead on a try that's begun."

A T is treated the same as any other foul in terms of when the ball becomes dead / continutation, etc.

The case play is saying to wait because if A hasn't started the try, B could get an advantage (the "sure thing breakaway" would be lost).

but, if your real question is "am I overthinking this?" then the answer is "yes."

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A T is treated the same as any other foul in terms of when the ball becomes dead / continutation, etc....but, if your real question is "am I overthinking this?" then the answer is "yes."

I appreciate that, Bob.

Back to the beginning, then, doesn't that make this statement technically incorrect? Or am I misreading/misinterpreting what you're saying, here, APG?

Originally Posted by APG

...calling the T when he did took away an open 3. I think you need a more patient whistle here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I appreciate that, Bob.

Back to the beginning, then, doesn't that make this statement technically incorrect? Or am I misreading/misinterpreting what you're saying, here, APG?

I think bob is saying that the case play should, in this case, be read at face value. It's an unusual situation, and if B's coach is being a dick, there's no need to take away a scoring opportunity for A. Just wait a second or two.

Sure, the rule says the ball becomes dead when the foul occurs, but the case tells us they don't want a scoring opportunity to be taken away.

[IUgrad92]

As it is being determined that it would be in the best interest for police officers to wear body cams for sake of recording incidents and transparency, I would like to see microphone/recorders inserted into the precision timing devices that the officials wear. Record everything.....

Gottfried says he didn't use profanity prior to the T, everyone here is assuming that he must have used some magic words. Who's ever going to really know what happened and what was said?

Having recordings that conference assignors and university administration can go back, listen to and review could allow them to target and clean-up whichever side of the aisle needs it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Gottfried says he didn't use profanity prior to the T, everyone here is assuming that he must have used some magic words. Who's ever going to really know what happened and what was said?

And if he didn't use profanity...so what? His overt actions of slapping down on his hand like he did in displeasure for the call was enough in itself to get a T.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by APG

And if he didn't use profanity...so what? His overt actions of slapping down on his hand like he did in displeasure for the call was enough in itself to get a T.

If there was no profanity, my opinion is that what was done did not warrant the technical. Instead, especially with the past history and being his first game back in 3 years, why not have a 5 second conversation with the coach, tell him that's enough, and give a warning. 4 minutes into the game, optically speaking and perceptually, just looks bad and looks like Hess flat out has something against someone or something.

Maybe it was deserved, but it is truly unfortunate he had to be the one on the sideline at that time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If there was no profanity, my opinion is that what was done did not warrant the technical. Instead, especially with the past history and being his first game back in 3 years, why not have a 5 second conversation with the coach, tell him that's enough, and give a warning. 4 minutes into the game, optically speaking and perceptually, just looks bad and looks like Hess flat out has something against someone or something.

Maybe it was deserved, but it is truly unfortunate he had to be the one on the sideline at that time.

And you would be fired from even some lower level leagues if you only needed profanity to give a T. For the record at college games, we hear profanity all the time and do not penalize based off of profanity.

Since you are so concerned about when Hess was last there (not like this is a basketball mecca), I am sure Hess' schedule will be just fine not going back in the next 10 years.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you would be fired from even some lower level leagues if you only needed profanity to give a T. For the record at college games, we hear profanity all the time and do not penalize based off of profanity.

Since you are so concerned about when Hess was last there (not like this is a basketball mecca), I am sure Hess' schedule will be just fine not going back in the next 10 years.

Peace

Then I humbly request that every time I used the word profanity please replace it with 'magic words'.

That way maybe we can get past the 'small picture' and get back to the broader point(s) I was making.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Then I humbly request that every time I used the word profanity please replace it with 'magic words'.

That way maybe we can get past the 'small picture' and get back to the broader point(s) I was making.....

You're the one who contradicted the "magic words" theory with the coach's denial that he used profanity.

Years ago, a man ran a red light and broadsided my wife's car. He challenged the ticket in court and kept insisting that he wasn't speeding.

The defense doesn't make sense in light of the charges. NCSU fans are deluding themselves if they think Hess even cares enough to be out to get them.

At that level, profanity is neither required nor sufficient for a technical foul.