Wofford/NC State–Gottfried technical foul (Video)

[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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

But...doesn't the rule not say that?

[bob jenkins]

read it this way: The foul occurs when the referee decided s/he's heard enough. The referee shouldn't decide this until the scoring chance is over.

Or -- the book doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says. That's why there is the case book.

(And, yes, I recognize that sometimes all of us take the side of "that's what the rule says" in a discussion.)

If you think it's too confusing, petition for a change.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

But...doesn't the rule not say that?

The case tells us how they want us to apply the rule. The rule was written for most circumstances, and the case addresses the one time they want us to apply it differently.