Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

[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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Isn't contact that's unnecessary also unacceptable by definition? And the bar for excessive would be significantly lower during a dead ball.

[Camron Rust]

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.

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

I agree. Excessive is relative to the context...and that context isn't specifically demarcated by the status of the ball. If that were not the case, we'd have one of two results. We'd have a lot of T's for contact just after the whistle blows or we'd have to allow a lot of silly dead ball contact well after the whistle. The threshold shifts when the action is such that it is no longer connected to the live ball action.

[mutantducky]

ok so contact T. In this case the whistle blew, the play was clearly dead, and the GT player made contact. Not a flagrant 2 but a clear example of a contact dead ball technical. If you let that go, then what's stopping players in games from doing what he did? I've had games after a violation, when the defender will wrest the ball out of an offensive player's hand. That may not be a T, they are trying to get the ball back and play to resume quicker. But here there is contact and it does not seem incidental at all. IMO

errr, watch it out 33 to 38 seconds. The GT players knows there is a whistle. I don't know if it is just a stupid celebration that went over the top, but how in the world can you people say you'd ignore the contact he made? He clearly hits the EW player. It is a textbook case of a dead ball T.

per Nevada

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

My judgment determines what is "unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive,". For some reason it offends your sensibilities when someone's judgment doesn't match yours.

A2 cuts through the paint, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. Common foul

A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. In my game it's a T, in your game it's a ....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A2 cuts through the paint, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. Common foul

A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. In my game it's a T, in your game it's a ....

... technical foul.

Good example of a common foul (not an intentional foul) when the ball is live, and an intentional (technical) foul when the ball is dead, for the same, exact, physical contact.

And, by the way, I was leaning toward siding with Nevadaref's, "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" interpretation. Nevaderef may, by strict interpretation of the written rule, and definition, be correct, but sometimes we just have to officiate the game.

On the other hand, the definition (NFHS) of intentional foul does include the phrase, "but are not limited to", which may bolster BadNewsRef's interpretation.

On the other hand (am I running out of hands?) can't we just call such contact (A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path) an unsporting technical foul, which includes the (NFHS) phrase, "is not limited to, acts, or conduct such as", thus avoiding the entire intentional, not intentional, live ball, dead ball, debate, or is that taking the easy way out?

Now? Who do I want to antagonize the least, BadNewsRef, or Nevaderef; and how does, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", fit this situation?

Maybe, this way?

[APG]

Cincinnati vs UK

Contact dead ball T...perfect example of contact that would be a common foul during live ball play....but called a T during a dead ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

On the other hand (am I running out of hands?) can't we just call such contact (A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path) an unsporting technical foul, which includes the (NFHS) phrase, "is not limited to, acts, or conduct such as", thus avoiding the entire intentional, not intentional, live ball, dead ball, debate, or is that taking the easy way out?...

You can't take the easy way out in NCAA-Men's b/c Dead Ball Contact technicals are administered differently than Unsporting technicals.