Cincinnati vs Kentucky Contact Dead Ball Technical Foul (Video)

[APG]

Regarding an earlier discussion on the merits that the exact same standards of a(n) intentional/flagrant technical foul (dead ball contact) must mean the exact physical requirements for a(n) intentional/flagrant personal foul (live ball contact)...

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You beat me to it. Per Nevada's interpretation, this should be ignored in both NFHS and NCAA.

Originally Posted by Adam

Can't wait to see that video.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It was basically a shoulder bump while crossing paths.

[APG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL976eQ6juQ

[deecee]

It was starting to get chirpy, and I think this was a good T to settle everyone down.

[BryanV21]

Why did Ellis (Cin) get away with all that instigating? What Harrison (Ken) did isn't right, but how can the officials ignore the fact that Ellis was the root of the problem (at least here, as I don't know what happened before this sequence)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why did Ellis (Cin) get away with all that instigating? What Harrison (Ken) did isn't right, but how can the officials ignore the fact that Ellis was the root of the problem (at least here, as I don't know what happened before this sequence)?

Officials should have had a quick trigger on Ellis, IMO. He had just been tossed from the previous game for a FF2.

[rockyroad]

This is a great example of how "talking" to the players doesn't always work. We (including myself here) think we can talk to players and get things settled down in these types of situations. Most of the time that works great...but when dealing with known knuckleheads, maybe talking isn't the best way to handle things. If Ellis gets a DB Contact T in the first play, the second probably never happens.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why did Ellis (Cin) get away with all that instigating? What Harrison (Ken) did isn't right, but how can the officials ignore the fact that Ellis was the root of the problem (at least here, as I don't know what happened before this sequence)?

Agreed. The Cincy player was the troublemaker here and got away with a lot of instigating.