Why didn't we shoot techinals after Bazz took an elbow to the head?

[Palatine]

Clear as a bell, an elbow to the head. No shots.

 

[huskiesNhoos]

they called the reach in on bazz then double T's i think

 

[BearJWS]

Double technical cancelled each other out.

 

[Palatine]

Double technical cancelled each other out.

Yeah but the elbow to the head is a special "1" so why didn't that trump everything? And don't we get possession as well?

 

[champs99and04]

Refs got that one right. Bazz took a little shot, he gave one back, that was really all that happened. Play on.

 

[BearJWS]

Yeah but the elbow to the head is a special "1" so why didn't that trump everything? And don't we get possession as well?

They slapped Napier with the foul & technical too.

 

[Palatine]

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.

At the very least we should have gotten possession.

 

[Zerosumgame]

It is sad that the game is now reffed in a way that people expect incidents like the Napier one tonight and the Brimah one last night to end in anything other than few harsh words and everybody playing on.

 

[whaler11]

They needed the monitor to get it right but crying about that call is silly.

 

[Palatine]

So after the Bazz foul which gives side out to the Cards, we get a flagrant 1 which gives us two shots and the ball. It over rules the side out to the Cards. The the Bazz technical gives them two shots.

So they shots are either taken or zero each other out...but...

We get the ball.

 

[dsturdy5]

Flagrant fouls happen on a live ball, that was a dead ball situation since Napier had already committed a common foul. Therefore it could only be a technical.

The explanation I heard, and where I was, it was hard to hear the tv so if it was explained better there, I don't know, was that it wasn't a t for the elbow but for taunting as the elbow was part of the motion of his arm after the foul.