How do you call that Technical?

[upstater]

I'm not defending prez.

He did swing his arms violently. Like it or not, that's throwing an elbow. I can't honestly say I'm 100% on the rule in college, but I am 99% sure. Whether you make contact or not, and whether the intent is to harm or not, excessive swinging of the elbow(s) is a foul, and like all fouls it's a judgment call and that's how the ref called it. According to the rule, I think he made the right call.

The technical was mind-boggling.

He didn't throw an elbow. The opposing player reached in and grabbed his forearm, so that when he went to rip the ball away from the guy grabbing him, his arm left the ball as he swung the ball toward the baseline, and he ended up flailing. No elbows at any time. The most he did was push the guy away after the PC player grabbed Drummond's arm.

 

[tzznandrew]

He didn't throw an elbow. The opposing player reached in and grabbed his forearm, so that when he went to rip the ball away from the guy grabbing him, his arm left the ball as he swung the ball toward the baseline, and he ended up flailing. No elbows at any time. The most he did was push the guy away after the PC player grabbed Drummond's arm.

Here's a baseline shot that show's he doesn't even elbow the kid. Makes no contact:

 

[The Funster]

It was awful officiating. AD was fouled 2 or 3 times, then his elbow was pushed up. He then lobbed the ball to the official who have him a T. In a game you are comfortably winning, you get past it. In a game you are struggling to hold on to, it's a kick in the nuts. I'd say given the game situation, it had a big impact. It doesn't excuse the way the game was given away though.

 

[Prezidint]

Because neither of those statements change the fact that defending the technical foul call itself is just dumb.

I'm hardly "defending" the technical call. The ref clearly could have let it go, and it's arguable that he should have.

I'm defending the truth in the following words - "AD committed a clear foul. AD then recovered the ball and threw the ball to the ref, and he shouldn't have done that, given that the ref was going to report the foul and clearly wasn't looking at him. Players often throw the ball to the ref when there's a dead ball, but not to the ref who just called the foul and is running over to the scorers table. AD, essentially, did something stupid that gave the ref grounds, no matter how thin, to call the T. Fault - Ours, not Refs."

 

[caw]

I'm hardly "defending" the technical call. The ref clearly could have let it go, and it's arguable that he should have.

I'm defending the truth in the following words - "AD committed a clear foul. AD then recovered the ball and threw the ball to the ref, and he shouldn't have done that, given that the ref was going to report the foul and clearly wasn't looking at him. Players often throw the ball to the ref when there's a dead ball, but not to the ref who just called the foul and is running over to the scorers table. AD, essentially, did something stupid that gave the ref grounds, no matter how thin, to call the T. Fault - Ours, not Refs."

I want to stay out of this but I can't help myself.

It may be truthful words but they skew what happened.

1) threw. That just is not a throw by any means. It's a toss and yes there is a difference. 2) Players give it to the closest ref, usually the ref takes it or tosses it to the baseline or another ref or ignores it. By no means should what Drummond did ever constitute a technical. It was just a very poor call.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm hardly "defending" the technical call. The ref clearly could have let it go, and it's arguable that he should have.

I'm defending the truth in the following words - "AD committed a clear foul. AD then recovered the ball and threw the ball to the ref, and he shouldn't have done that, given that the ref was going to report the foul and clearly wasn't looking at him. Players often throw the ball to the ref when there's a dead ball, but not to the ref who just called the foul and is running over to the scorers table. AD, essentially, did something stupid that gave the ref grounds, no matter how thin, to call the T. Fault - Ours, not Refs."

And it's dumb to say he shouldn't have thrown the ball to the ref making the call. He wasn't looking and he didn't throw it hard or at head level.

 

[imno1]

He didn't do anything to warrant that T, it was an awful decision by an awful referee.......as far as boxing out he had 12 boards, you may want to look elsewhere for the toughness!! Granted he could've had 18-20 but at least he was there...........offensively besides the alley oop lots of work to do..........

I hear you but my real point was I have no problem with him helping someone up.

 

[hoopsknowitall]

Here's a baseline shot that show's he doesn't even elbow the kid. Makes no contact:

Wow. That's a great angle. Hadn't seen that shot and I don't think there is any way you can't say that the ref didn't blow that call big time. There was a six point swing there.

Toss in the banked in three, a couple of circus threes that had no business going in and this abortion of a call and it just makes you wonder when UCONN's luck is going to turn around.

 

[BlueMAB]

Here's a baseline shot that show's he doesn't even elbow the kid. Makes no contact:

He doesn't have to make contact to get called for a foul in that situation. The HS rule book is very clear on that, and I believe college is the same.

 

[BlueMAB]

He didn't throw an elbow. The opposing player reached in and grabbed his forearm, so that when he went to rip the ball away from the guy grabbing him, his arm left the ball as he swung the ball toward the baseline, and he ended up flailing. No elbows at any time. The most he did was push the guy away after the PC player grabbed Drummond's arm.

FWIW You see it differently than virtually everyone who isn't a UConn fan.

 

[Prezidint]

Toss in the banked in three, a couple of circus threes that had no business going in and this abortion of a call and it just makes you wonder when UCONN's luck is going to turn around.

Guys, I got this one.

Here's when: when they decide that they are going to play balls to the walls for 40 minutes. That's when, like a miracle, their luck will change.

 

[Excalibur]

No argument on that one. They need to adopt the same "**** you" attitude that has personified the best Calhoun teams. Bank in a three? ****you, you're not seeing another open shot. Call a stupid foul/Technical on us? **** you, we're not letting your incompetent @ss stop us. Make a circus shot? **** you, watch us run out on you off the make and score.

This team hasn't had that.

 

[upstater]

FWIW You see it differently than virtually everyone who isn't a UConn fan.

Everyone? Huh.
And the video on this page lies too? t-andrew's link above shows he didn't throw an elbow.

 

[gwhuskyfan]

I'm not sure if anyone is watching OSU/Northwestern, but tie up happens, ball goes to NW and Sullinger takes the ball and throws it behind his back out of bounds...No T called....

 

[BlueMAB]

Everyone? Huh.
And the video on this page lies too? t-andrew's link above shows he didn't throw an elbow.

No not everyone, but the rulebook does.

I can't find the rule online, but I found this.
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104884/Library/files/Elbowruleeducation9-12-10(3).pdf

"Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul."

In the ref's judgment, Drummond excessively swung his arms. It's a tough call from that angle, and I can see why he called it that way. He got it wrong, but that wasn't the dagger. The technical was. However, Prez is right, the major concern should be how the team is playing.

 

[uconnfan68]

No not everyone, but the rulebook does.

I can't find the rule online, but I found this.
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104884/Library/files/Elbowruleeducation9-12-10(3).pdf

"Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul."

In the ref's judgment, Drummond excessively swung his arms. It's a tough call from that angle, and I can see why he called it that way. He got it wrong, but that wasn't the dagger. The technical was. However, Prez is right, the major concern should be how the team is playing.

So a blown call deserves a tech on top of it? Only in the Dunk.

 

[BlueMAB]

So a blown call deserves a tech on top of it? Only in the Dunk.

I called the technical "mind-boggling" in my first post. I never said he deserved a tech. That call was terrible.

 

[upstater]

No not everyone, but the rulebook does.

I can't find the rule online, but I found this.
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104884/Library/files/Elbowruleeducation9-12-10(3).pdf

"Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul."

In the ref's judgment, Drummond excessively swung his arms. It's a tough call from that angle, and I can see why he called it that way. He got it wrong, but that wasn't the dagger. The technical was. However, Prez is right, the major concern should be how the team is playing.

The Prez is right? No, he's wrong. He wrote a bunch of stuff that was wrong.

1. He threw an elbow
2. He threw the ball
3. It's a tech when you throw the ball to a ref making the signal
4. Drummond said something to the ref

Not many people here are contesting anything other than the technical. All I said was he wasn't throwing elbows. That, and he was fouled.

 

[hoopsknowitall]

The Prez is right? No, he's wrong. He wrote a bunch of stuff that was wrong.

1. He threw an elbow
2. He threw the ball
3. It's a tech when you throw the ball to a ref making the signal
4. Drummond said something to the ref

Not many people here are contesting anything other than the technical. All I said was he wasn't throwing elbows. That, and he was fouled.

This thread hasnt exactly been the highlight of Prez' posting career. I think he just likes to stir the pot honestly.

 

[BlueMAB]

The Prez is right? No, he's wrong. He wrote a bunch of stuff that was wrong.

1. He threw an elbow
2. He threw the ball
3. It's a tech when you throw the ball to a ref making the signal
4. Drummond said something to the ref

Not many people here are contesting anything other than the technical. All I said was he wasn't throwing elbows. That, and he was fouled.

Sometimes I wonder why you are so intentionally obtuse.

I said prez is right that the concern should be how the team is playing, I didn't say he was right about the other stuff.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand, but it doesn't matter if he threw an elbow or not. Swinging the arm or swinging the elbow, it's the same foul. The rule book is very clear on that.

 

[tzznandrew]

Sometimes I wonder why you are so intentionally obtuse.

I said prez is right that the concern should be how the team is playing, I didn't say he was right about the other stuff.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand, but it doesn't matter if he threw an elbow or not. Swinging the arm or swinging the elbow, it's the same foul. The rule book is very clear on that.

To be fair to upstater, his point was that, if you watch the highlight, Drummond didn't swing an elbow--his arm looked like it due to being fouled.

 

[dsturdy5]

No not everyone, but the rulebook does.

I can't find the rule online, but I found this.
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104884/Library/files/Elbowruleeducation9-12-10(3).pdf

"Any foul involving excessive swinging of the arm(s) and elbow(s) (Rule 4-36.7), either above or below the shoulders during a live ball, or that otherwise meets the requirements of Rule 4-29.2.c and 4-29.3.f.1 shall be penalized by a flagrant personal foul."

In the ref's judgment, Drummond excessively swung his arms. It's a tough call from that angle, and I can see why he called it that way. He got it wrong, but that wasn't the dagger. The technical was. However, Prez is right, the major concern should be how the team is playing.

But if there is no contact it is not a foul, it is a violation for excessive swinging of the elbows. Now if his angle made him think it was a foul, then yes, it is that. However this was never called as a flagrant personal. It was a common personal.

 

[upstater]

Sometimes I wonder why you are so intentionally obtuse.

I said prez is right that the concern should be how the team is playing, I didn't say he was right about the other stuff.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand, but it doesn't matter if he threw an elbow or not. Swinging the arm or swinging the elbow, it's the same foul. The rule book is very clear on that.

Me obtuse? Really? In a thread about a technical, you guys are making totally obfuscatory points about how the team is playing? And I'm the obtuse one? You only want threads about how bad the team is? Nothing else can be discussed? I'm the obtuse one?

I was showing the many many many many inaccuracies in Prezidint's post.

Quite frankly, I think you've hijacked a thread on a technical foul. You should look in the mirror when it comes to being obtuse, because I don't think many people disagree with you that the team is playing badly and that their play is responsible for most of the losses, but that's totally irrelevant to this thread. You may want to check out what obtuse means given that context.

 

[freescooter]

If the ref was out of position, or even in position but just had the wrong angle, I could see how you could mistake Drummond's move for throwing an elbow. Bad call but cedrtainly not the worst ever made. Unfortunately it was made worse by the technical, which I think was again accidental but if the ball hits you in the back, as your walking away, you might think someone was being a jerk...I thought at the time that it was a bad call and even if Drummond did "throw the ball at him" he should have swallowed his whistle.

 

[Prezidint]

This thread hasnt exactly been the highlight of Prez' posting career. I think he just likes to stir the pot honestly.

Your face.