Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...
Please cite the text of the rule. What terminology does the rule use for the the dead ball contact standard?...

c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow which is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

e. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul.

Next subject...

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Sorry judge, my burden of proof has been accepted in my jurisdiction.

As I said, do as you wish. That's the beautiful thing about the word "interpretation".

And obviously you are only speaking of NFHS, as the NCAA citations clearly show your opinion is not correct for that venue.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sorry judge, my burden of proof has been accepted in my jurisdiction.

As I said, do as you wish. That's the beautiful thing about the word "interpretation".

And obviously you are only speaking of NFHS, as the NCAA citations clearly show your opinion is not correct for that venue.

No. The NCAA standard is written right here as you posted.
"e. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul."

The problem is that the rule uses the word "and" while you are applying it as if it said "or" in your attempt to justify calling a tech for just unnecessary contact during a dead ball.

You are fortunate that the powers where you are support your method because the rules book language does not.