Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Forget video, your stance is not defendable by rule.

And I really think the "this is the type of stuff that leads to fights" saying is overused. At the end of the play the EWU kid taps the Georgetown player on the back indicating that its all good. My guess is the GU player said something to the effect of "my bad" as he walked up to him.

Regardless, I think the officials ruled appropriately here. It was clumsy and looked ugly but it was unintentional. They reviewed it, got it right, and moved onto the game.

And can we edit the OP. There is nothing anywhere close to a smack across the face on this play. Thats completely inaccurate and misleading.

[mutantducky]

I think the reactions following the event allayed any chance of a T being called (hmm is allayed used right there? )

But what if the EW player had gotten up and in the GT player's face. The cause of that incident would have been the initial contact. You know what would have happened if that was the case? Refs would go to the replay and I can assure you a Tech would be called on the GT player. If I'm playing a game, or in any games I ref, if someone does what the Georgetown player did, there is likely going to be an argument and heated tempers. In this case there wasn't but I still can't see how you don't call a T here. I'm just totally miffed why some of you think what the refs is ok. the Georgetown player was wrong and there should have been a whistle for it. Preventive officiating.
Yes, an ejection would have been too much.

[APG]

FYI...they did go to replay...and came to the conclusion of no T.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

But what if the EW player had gotten up and in the GT player's face.

Tech on EW.

I'm just totally miffed on how some of you think what the refs did not calling anything is ok. What the Georgetown player did was wrong and there should have been a whistle for it. Preventive officiating.
Yes, an ejection would have been too much.

Simplify this... were is actions intentional? No. Therefore, BY RULE, no grounds for a foul call (of any kind). Be miffed at the way the rule is worded if you must... but by the rules currently in existence, a call here would be incorrect.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Tech on EW.

Simplify this... were is actions intentional? No. Therefore, BY RULE, no grounds for a foul call (of any kind). Be miffed at the way the rule is worded if you must... but by the rules currently in existence, a call here would be incorrect.

Exactly...unless the contact rises to the level of FF1 during a live ball, it can't be a T in this place. Similar contact WELL after the whistle, however, could be considered unsporting and be a T, but not such contact immediately after the whistle. The player can't be expected to completely freeze on the whistle.

[APG]

I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

That is merely your opinion. You have nothing written in the rules to support your personal stance that there is a difference between live and dead ball intentional/excessive contact.
Furthermore, my opinion is that you are incorrect. The standard is the same by rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is merely your opinion. You have nothing written in the rules to support your personal stance that there is a difference between live and dead ball intentional/excessive contact.
Furthermore, my opinion is that you are incorrect. The standard is the same by rule.

And that's your opinion which has no rules backing. I already provided the citations in the thread way back when.

So, you do it your way, and others will do it their way.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is merely your opinion. You have nothing written in the rules to support your personal stance that there is a difference between live and dead ball intentional/excessive contact.
Furthermore, my opinion is that you are incorrect. The standard is the same by rule.

Nothing I said is not supported by rule...I just stated the real world expectation/interpretation. Contact being ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant almost always deals with deciding whether to T or ignore contact that occurs at or near the time the ball becomes dead.

Watch any college game where there's a dead ball contact T...I guarantee you that a good percentage of those plays, the contact, if it would have occurred during a live ball would NOT be called a FF1...but they would be backed up by rule and their supervisors cause the contact was excessive for the situation...even if it wouldn't be for a live ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

Nothing I said is not supported by rule...I just stated the real world expectation/interpretation. Contact being ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant almost always deals with deciding whether to T or ignore contact that occurs at or near the time the ball becomes dead.

Watch any college game where there's a dead ball contact T...I guarantee you that a good percentage of those plays, the contact, if it would have occurred during a live ball would NOT be called a FF1...but they would be backed up by rule and their supervisors cause the contact was excessive for the situation...even if it wouldn't be for a live ball.

Nope, you are still giving your personal opinion. What you have now called "the real world expectation/interpretation."
Please cite the text of the rule. What terminology does the rule use for the the dead ball contact standard?
We need to officiate according to the rules, not what you think is appropriate.
We had this same discussion a few weeks ago. You were wrong by rule the and still are now.
There is no rule extant instructing the officials to judge contact one second after the ball becomes dead differently from contact five or ten seconds later. The rule is written to cover ALL dead ball contact without regard to the timeframe.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is merely your opinion. You have nothing written in the rules to support your personal stance that there is a difference between live and dead ball intentional/excessive contact.
Furthermore, my opinion is that you are incorrect. The standard is the same by rule.

I would say that the difference is carried in the word "excessive."

Full Definition of EXCESSIVE
: exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal

What is excessive when the ball is in play and entitled to try to steal the ball is flat out different from what is excessive when the ball is dead (clearly dead, not continuous play) and the player has no business trying to swipe at the ball in the first place. What is excessive when a player is battling for position for a rebound is flat out different form what is excessive when players are walking back to the bench after a time out has been signalled and they have no business making any contact at all. When the ball is dead, very little contact is "usual, proper, necessary, or normal," so it doesn't take as much contact to be "excesive."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

In the NFHS rules, it just says "unless intentional or flagrant". Both of those are defined, but I don't disagree that the threshold for what's excessive may be different based on whether the ball is live or dead, or even how long it's been dead. I'll have to ponder that a bit, though.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

In the NFHS rules, it just says "unless intentional or flagrant". Both of those are defined, but I don't disagree that the threshold for what's excessive may be different based on whether the ball is live or dead, or even how long it's been dead. I'll have to ponder that a bit, though.

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

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.

Yeah, there's a difference in threshold for sure. Two players are crossing during a timeout and one deliberately bumps the other one. Probably a common foul during the live play, maybe even incidental, but I'm not ignoring this during a dead ball. Gotta use common sense at times, and I think dead ball contact is one of those times.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

I don't disagree the threshhold moves, but I don't think it moves all that much.