Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

[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?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

By what rule? This is NCAA, not NFHS and the applicable rule (NCAA 10-3-1d) has already been posted elsewhere

You said you are calling this a tech "every time" so I'm assuming that you are calling it a tech in your HS games as well.

Originally Posted by AremRed

I wonder if you would say the same thing after you've been through a fight.

I've been involved in games that had fights as a player, coach, and an official. And that statement is oversused, case in point by you in this thread.

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.

[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

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by 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

This is not a textbook case -- clearly -- as many excellent officials have stated they wouldn't call it here.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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

This just wasn't unnecessary or excessive. There is some amount of time after the whistle where we allow the players to wind down before that would be considered unnecessary or excessive. If not, you'd have a bunch of silly T's every game whenever you had the possibility of a travel or a foul when the travel happens first or two or more possible fouls.

It is a matter of deliberately contacting the opponent when it is clear the ball is dead vs. brief continued play after the whistle.

[MechanicGuy]

I wouldn't call the T either, although I've worked with many partners who wouldn't hesitate to do so. I think a T could certainly be justified, though a minority of officials world call it.

[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.

[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.

[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.