Dead Ball Technical question.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Might be worth noting that this ruling is nearly the same for both NFHS (Flagrant Tech) and NCAA (Flagrant 2 Tech) because the POI is not used for a Flagrant 2 Tech.

After the free throws, the only difference in college is that the ball could be put in play at the division line on either side of the table. Most college officials go opposite, anyway, even though they have a choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but had this been a routine POI technical, the POI would have been the AP throw-in?

For NCAA, yes. The OP was high school, so there isn't a POI tech (unless multiple)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

For NCAA, yes. The OP was high school, so there isn't a POI tech (unless multiple)

Nope, a dead ball tech in NCAA men is not POI, so please refrain from confusing the situation with talk of POI.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Correct me if I'm wrong, but had this been a routine POI technical, the POI would have been the AP throw-in?

Originally Posted by frezer11

For NCAA, yes.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, a dead ball tech in NCAA men is not POI, so please refrain from confusing the situation with talk of POI.

What if the dead ball tech is non-contact and not a flagrant 2? Would that not result in POI?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

What if the dead ball tech is non-contact and not a flagrant 2? Would that not result in POI?

So would that then be an unsporting technical? If so, what difference does it make if the ball was live or dead?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, a dead ball tech in NCAA men is not POI, so please refrain from confusing the situation with talk of POI.

Umm... Yes it is. Before you go telling others to check the rules, you better be pretty sure yourself. The situation cc posted did NOT say dead ball contact. A "dead ball technical foul" written like that should be POI.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So would that then be an unsporting technical? If so, what difference does it make if the ball was live or dead?

You're right about this, the ball being live or dead is irrelevant.

Cross country, am I correct in saying that your original question about a routine POI technical wasn't concerned with how the tech happened, but rather whether or not to go to the arrow after? That's what I would assume most reasonable people would gather from the phrase "routine POI technical." The point is the majority of technical fouls in fact ARE infractions that are resumed POI, and if a held ball was the last thing to happen before the technical foul, then we go to the arrow.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Umm... Yes it is. Before you go telling others to check the rules, you better be pretty sure yourself. The situation cc posted did NOT say dead ball contact. A "dead ball technical foul" written like that should be POI.



You're right about this, the ball being live or dead is irrelevant.

Cross country, am I correct in saying that your original question about a routine POI technical wasn't concerned with how the tech happened, but rather whether or not to go to the arrow after? That's what I would assume most reasonable people would gather from the phrase "routine POI technical." The point is the majority of technical fouls in fact ARE infractions that are resumed POI, and if a held ball was the last thing to happen before the technical foul, then we go to the arrow.

Yes, it was.

Funny how I added an unnecessary word, and Nevada forgot a very important one, and between the two of us my simple question took about eight rounds of posting to resolve. All because of two words.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

All because of two words.

Two words can be just as important as one punctuation mark:

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Umm... Yes it is. Before you go telling others to check the rules, you better be pretty sure yourself. The situation cc posted did NOT say dead ball contact. A "dead ball technical foul" written like that should be POI.



You're right about this, the ball being live or dead is irrelevant.

You completely missed the point. Since you have just agreed that whether the ball is live or dead is irrelevant for an unsporting technical foul, the conclusion must be that the only tech for which it matters to specify that the ball was dead is the one involving contact. That was the point which I was trying to make to CC with my previous line of questioning as that kind of T also doesn't result in POI.

His "routine" technical description was woefully unclear as shoving an opponent during a dead ball may be considered a "routine" technical by many officials. Others may feel the same way about a player expressing displeasure with a call.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

His "routine" technical description was woefully unclear as shoving an opponent during a dead ball may be considered a "routine" technical by many officials. Others may feel the same way about a player expressing displeasure with a call.

I didn't say routine technical. I said routine POI technical, thereby concretely excluding contact dead ball fouls.

I concede the word "routine" was superfluous. But good heavens, it wasn't woefully unclear!

If I ever needed a lawyer, I would retain Nevada. He is a master of manipulative persuasion (a.k.a. "spin").

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, a dead ball tech in NCAA men is not POI, so please refrain from confusing the situation with talk of POI.

"Contact" dead ball technicals are not POI in NCAAM. That word is important. Mouthing off during a dead ball is a class A and still POI. Dunking a dead ball is a Class B and still POI. Adding a player to the roster at the 6 minute mark..before the game..while the ball is dead is an administrative tech--POI.