Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

Originally Posted by Adam

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....

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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

Intent matters.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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 Adam

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

Intent matters.

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.

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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.

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

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

Is "excessive" a rulebook defined term? If not, it seems to be subjective depending on the situation. I'd agree with those who believe what's excessive in a live-ball situation and what's excessive in a dead-ball situation are different.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

You said you would consider ruling this as "taunting." You are correct that both are under the section of rules "Class A Unsporting Technical Fouls" but the penalty is different for a contact deadball technical. This is the difference I am pointing out.

Are you giving the ball back to the team that traveled in this situation or are you going POI? There IS a difference.

[mutantducky]

for future reference
say this play in NFHS. So travel, then dead ball contact that you deem excessive and a T is called.

Is it two fts and the ball for the team that traveled. Or two fts and the ball back the Georgetown team(assuming this is High school).

[APG]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

for future reference
say this play in NFHS. So travel, then dead ball contact that you deem excessive and a T is called.

Is it two fts and the ball for the team that traveled. Or two fts and the ball back the Georgetown team(assuming this is High school).

Under NFHS rules what is the penalty for all single technical fouls?

Originally Posted by jpgc99

You said you would consider ruling this as "taunting." You are correct that both are under the section of rules "Class A Unsporting Technical Fouls" but the penalty is different for a contact deadball technical. This is the difference I am pointing out.

Are you giving the ball back to the team that traveled in this situation or are you going POI? There IS a difference.

I would consider this a contact dead ball tech under NCAA 10-3-1d and award the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

Does any foul have to be intentionally committed in order to call it??

No, but it does if you're going to call it F1, unless it's excessive contact.

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

I would consider this a contact dead ball tech under NCAA 10-3-1d and award the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the court.

I'm trying to track your train of thought here. First, you say you're going with excessive contact, then you say you're going with taunting so you don't need the DB contact rule. Now you're back to DB contact, presumably so you can give the ball to the other team.

I don't see this as either. The contact is not excessive, and I don't think you can have a DBC technical foul if the contact isn't excessive based on the wording of the rule. I recognize what's "excessive" is up to judgment, but this isn't even that close to me. I wouldn't question a partner who called it on the floor because I still think random and quick technical fouls are good for the game overall.

You've got a better case for tuanting, IMO, taunting is directed at the opponent (the exception would be actions designed to draw attention to himself, but this isn't that). Unless I can tell for sure he's directing his actions at his opponent rather than getting a bit exuberant after forcing a travel, I don't think think I can justify a taunting T.

If the kid who traveled hadn't made himself so vulnerable and off balance, he doesn't fall and we're not having this discussion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Sorry, but it seems to me the very definition of sportsmanship involves intent, as would the opposite. I can't think of a single example of an unsporting tech I would call where the action wasn't deliberate. I'll bet you can't either, given that you're going with a dead ball contact T. I still don't see how you can do that for contact that is neither intentional nor excessive.

Even allowing for a moving threshold for "excessive", this doesn't even come close, IMO. It looks bad because the other guy had gotten his feet twisted into knots.