Originally Posted by Adam (Post 958443)

Contact during a dead ball is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.

"Intentional" means that if it happened during a live ball, it must fit the definition of an intentional foul (FF1 in NCAA).

To do so, it must be one of the following:
1. Elbow to the head. NOPE
2. Excessive contact. NOPE
3. Done intentionally (to stop the clock or prevent it from starting). NOPE

As Hokie noted, this is a common foul during live ball, so it should be ignored if it occurs during a dead ball.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 958448)

So, if it sn't intentional, what is the basis for a T??

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 958450)

Forget video, your stance is not defendable by rule.

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 958450)

And I really think the "this is the type of stuff that leads to fights" saying is overused.

Originally Posted by APG (Post 958484)

And that's my point...what meets the threshold for intentional during a live ball doesn't always carry over to a dead ball....that threshold is going to be a lot lower when the ball is clearly dead...where opponents have no real reason to be causing physical contact.

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958485)

I don't need that rule, I can use the unsporting tech rule. I consider that contact to be unnecessary and unacceptable.

Originally Posted by APG (Post 958484)

And that's my point...what meets the threshold for intentional during a live ball doesn't always carry over to a dead ball....that threshold is going to be a lot lower when the ball is clearly dead...where opponents have no real reason to be causing physical contact.

Originally Posted by APG (Post 958482)

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. The rule says contact is to be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Nothing more...nothing less. Nothing about dead ball contact having to equate to a intentional/flagrant personal foul.

But then we have to ask what is intentional or flagrant. For the most part, this is going to deal with excessive contact during a dead ball. We almost never officiate in absolutes...what is excessive in one situation would be common foul in another.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 958487)

I'd have a hard time supporting that with my supervisors in this case given the fact that it's completely accidental. The contact was accidental. Does the rule differentiate? You're looking for a call on "contact", I think you have to use the rules that apply to contact. If you want to get him for taunting....

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958490)

Taunting would work! Although I'm not even sure what the kid was doing. What the hell was he thinking? I'm not sure why so many other posters are saying this was accidental....how can they read the players mind? It's important to again note that we shouldn't base our calls on what a player meant to do, we base it on what the player did do. Unsporting, dead ball contact....whatever it was I'm calling a tech.

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958441)

I'm calling this tech every time. This is the stuff that leads to fights. I don't care if it was unintentional or not, you can't do that. I don't know why other posters are saying this is not defendable by video, I think it is very defendable.

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958490)

Taunting would work! Although I'm not even sure what the kid was doing. What the hell was he thinking? I'm not sure why so many other posters are saying this was accidental....how can they read the players mind? It's important to again note that we shouldn't base our calls on what a player meant to do, we base it on what the player did do. Unsporting, dead ball contact....whatever it was I'm calling a tech.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 958492)

How do you define unsporting if you're not looking at intent?

Intent matters.

Originally Posted by jpgc99 (Post 958495)

So you are ruling this a technical for unsporting behavior? Not dead ball contact?

I would disagree with ruling it a dead ball contact technical, but can see justification. I do not see any justification for ruling this unsporting behavior.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 958489)

From the Fed:

ART. 7

A player shall not:

Intentionally or flagrantly contacting (sic) an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

Nowhere in the rule book does it state that dead ball "intentional" equals the actions that would be "intentional" if the ball were live.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 958499)

The burden to prove that the standards are different is on APG and now you. The rules book uses the same terminology and no one has produced anything which states that they are to be read or interpreted differently.

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958498)

How does intent matter in relation to the rules? Typically when I call unsporting techs it's for something a player intends to do, but correlation does not equal causation. Just because most unsporting techs are given for intentional acts does not exclude others unintentional actions which may also be unsporting.



Have you not been reading the thread? I'll post the whole rule for ya so you don't get confused:

NCAA 10-3, page 92:

Section 3. CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions

Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but
not limited to, the following:

a. Disrespectfully addressing an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction.
d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.
e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead.
f. A flagrant noncontact infraction that involves extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct when the ball is dead or live.
g. Participating after having been disqualified (noncontact flagrant 2 technical).
h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant noncontact infraction).
i. Fighting as in Rule 10-5.
j. Disrespectfully contacting an official

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958498)

How does intent matter in relation to the rules? Typically when I call unsporting techs it's for something a player intends to do, but correlation does not equal causation. Just because most unsporting techs are given for intentional acts does not exclude others unintentional actions which may also be unsporting.



Have you not been reading the thread? I'll post the whole rule for ya so you don't get confused:

NCAA 10-3, page 92:

Section 3. CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions

Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but
not limited to, the following:

a. Disrespectfully addressing an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction.
d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.
e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead.
f. A flagrant noncontact infraction that involves extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct when the ball is dead or live.
g. Participating after having been disqualified (noncontact flagrant 2 technical).
h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant noncontact infraction).
i. Fighting as in Rule 10-5.
j. Disrespectfully contacting an official