Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

MD Longhorn

mutantducky wrote
But what if the EW player had gotten up and in the GT player's face.

Tech on EW.

I'm just totally miffed on how some of you think what the refs did not calling anything is ok. What the Georgetown player did was wrong and there should have been a whistle for it. Preventive officiating.
Yes, an ejection would have been too much.

Simplify this... were is actions intentional? No. Therefore, BY RULE, no grounds for a foul call (of any kind). Be miffed at the way the rule is worded if you must... but by the rules currently in existence, a call here would be incorrect.

Camron Rust

MD Longhorn wrote
Tech on EW.

Simplify this... were is actions intentional? No. Therefore, BY RULE, no grounds for a foul call (of any kind). Be miffed at the way the rule is worded if you must... but by the rules currently in existence, a call here would be incorrect.

Exactly...unless the contact rises to the level of FF1 during a live ball, it can't be a T in this place. Similar contact WELL after the whistle, however, could be considered unsporting and be a T, but not such contact immediately after the whistle. The player can't be expected to completely freeze on the whistle.

Raymond

mutantducky wrote
... If I'm playing a game, or in any games I ref, if someone does what the Georgetown player did, there is likely going to be an argument and heated tempers. In this case there wasn't but I still can't see how you don't call a T here. I'm just totally miffed why some of you think what the refs is ok. the Georgetown player was wrong and there should have been a whistle for it. Preventive officiating.
Yes, an ejection would have been too much.

The play was clumsiness, not maliciousness. If the most of us see nothing wrong, and the officials in the game (after replay review) saw nothing wrong, then maybe you need to calibrate your thinking as an official.

Also, the ability to keep his cool, like the player involved, is probably of the intangibles that got him a D1 scholarship.

APG

I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

Nevadaref

APG wrote
I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

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.

Raymond

Nevadaref wrote
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.

And that's your opinion which has no rules backing. I already provided the citations in the thread way back when.

So, you do it your way, and others will do it their way.

APG

Nevadaref wrote
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.

so cal lurker

Nevadaref wrote
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.

I would say that the difference is carried in the word "excessive."

Full Definition of EXCESSIVE
: exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal

What is excessive when the ball is in play and entitled to try to steal the ball is flat out different from what is excessive when the ball is dead (clearly dead, not continuous play) and the player has no business trying to swipe at the ball in the first place. What is excessive when a player is battling for position for a rebound is flat out different form what is excessive when players are walking back to the bench after a time out has been signalled and they have no business making any contact at all. When the ball is dead, very little contact is "usual, proper, necessary, or normal," so it doesn't take as much contact to be "excesive."

Nevadaref

APG wrote
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

Nevadaref wrote
...
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

Nevadaref wrote
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.

Adam

APG wrote
I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.

Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul

I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times.

As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T.

In the NFHS rules, it just says "unless intentional or flagrant". Both of those are defined, but I don't disagree that the threshold for what's excessive may be different based on whether the ball is live or dead, or even how long it's been dead. I'll have to ponder that a bit, though.

APG

Adam wrote
In the NFHS rules, it just says "unless intentional or flagrant". Both of those are defined, but I don't disagree that the threshold for what's excessive may be different based on whether the ball is live or dead, or even how long it's been dead. I'll have to ponder that a bit, though.

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.

[deleted]

Adam wrote
Contact during a dead ball is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.

"Intentional" means that if it happened during a live ball, it must fit the definition of an intentional foul (FF1 in NCAA).

To do so, it must be one of the following:
1. Elbow to the head. NOPE
2. Excessive contact. NOPE
3. Done intentionally (to stop the clock or prevent it from starting). NOPE

As Hokie noted, this is a common foul during live ball, so it should be ignored if it occurs during a dead ball.

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

so cal lurker wrote
So, if it sn't intentional, what is the basis for a T??

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

VaTerp wrote
Forget video, your stance is not defendable by rule.

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

VaTerp wrote
And I really think the "this is the type of stuff that leads to fights" saying is overused.

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

[deleted]

APG wrote
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.

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.

Adam

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

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....

Adam

APG wrote
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.

I don't disagree the threshhold moves, but I don't think it moves all that much.

Raymond

APG wrote
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.

[deleted]

Adam wrote
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

AremRed wrote
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.

« Previous Page Next Page »