Question for those most knowledgeable about the rule book ...

[DT_PITT]

In the technical foul fest in the first half ...

GDG got a dunk, and Austin picked up the ball and tossed it DJ Campbell who threw it back at Austin.

Both were called for technicals, and the refs go to the monitor and Szelc gives Capel a T.

California hits 1 of 2 and Pitt gets the ball out of bounds.

I'm not 100% sure why Pitt gets possession there.

At first I thought since Pitt and Cal both got technicals, it went to alternating possession, but that wasn't it because the arrow remained with Pitt after the play.

In the play by play, Austin and Campbell are both charged with technicals and turnovers.

The only thing I can figure is that Zach gets his T first and (and is charged with the turnover then -- even though Pitt doesn't have possession? -- in scoring, you simply cannot have a turnover without possession as I would understand it).

Then Campbell gets his T and turnover giving possession back to Pitt?

(Capel's T has no impact on possession).

Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe the refs just screwed up.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

In the technical foul fest in the first half ...

GDG got a dunk, and Austin picked up the ball and tossed it DJ Campbell who threw it back at Austin.

Both were called for technicals, and the refs go to the monitor and Szelc gives Capel a T.

California hits 1 of 2 and Pitt gets the ball out of bounds.

I'm not 100% sure why Pitt gets possession there.

At first I thought since Pitt and Cal both got technicals, it went to alternating possession, but that wasn't it because the arrow remained with Pitt after the play.

In the play by play, Austin and Campbell are both charged with technicals and turnovers.

The only thing I can figure is that Zach gets his T first and (and is charged with the turnover then -- even though Pitt doesn't have possession? -- in scoring, you simply cannot have a turnover without possession as I would understand it).

Then Campbell gets his T and turnover giving possession back to Pitt?

(Capel's T has no impact on possession).

Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe the refs just screwed up.

It was a dead ball tech on the Cal player, therefore we got the ball.

 

[DT_PITT]

It was a dead ball tech on the Cal player, therefore we got the ball.

Thanks, but why wasn't Zach's a dead ball tech? And why does Zach have a turnover on the stat sheet also?

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Thanks, but why wasn't Zach's a dead ball tech? And why does Zach have a turnover on the stat sheet also?

He must have done something during live ball action. Not sure what he did.

Otherwise, someone made a mistake somewhere.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

He must have done something during live ball action. Not sure what he did.

I think that's it. Austin's technical was when he got the ball after Guillermo's dunk and threw it at (to) the Cal player. That was a live ball technical. Then the guy gently threw the ball back at Austin, but that was a dead ball technical because theoretically the clock stopped when Austin committed his infraction.

So they weren't calling concurrent technical fouls, they were calling them sequentially. And since they committed the second, dead ball violation, we got the ball.

 

[DT_PITT]

I think that's it. Austin's technical was when he got the ball after Guillermo's dunk and threw it at (to) the Cal player. That was a live ball technical. Then the guy gently threw the ball back at Austin, but that was a dead ball technical because theoretically the clock stopped when Austin committed his infraction.

So they weren't calling concurrent technical fouls, they were calling them sequentially. And since they committed the second, dead ball violation, we got the ball.

That's basically what we figured, but this still doesn't really explain why Austin gets charged with a turnover on the scoresheet (as you know, you can't have a turnover if you don't have possession.)

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

I can’t figure out why those wouldn’t be concurrent technicals. If I was mark madsen I would have gotten technical myself over the absurd notion that Pitt “deserved “ the ball after that nonsense

 

[Franb]

I think that's it. Austin's technical was when he got the ball after Guillermo's dunk and threw it at (to) the Cal player. That was a live ball technical. Then the guy gently threw the ball back at Austin, but that was a dead ball technical because theoretically the clock stopped when Austin committed his infraction.

So they weren't calling concurrent technical fouls, they were calling them sequentially. And since they committed the second, dead ball violation, we got the ball.

That might explain why the refs spent so much time on the monitor, reviewing the play - figuring that out. There was nothing in the ball tosses that looked questionable on the reviews.

 

[whirlybird optio]

I think that's it. Austin's technical was when he got the ball after Guillermo's dunk and threw it at (to) the Cal player. That was a live ball technical. Then the guy gently threw the ball back at Austin, but that was a dead ball technical because theoretically the clock stopped when Austin committed his infraction.

So they weren't calling concurrent technical fouls, they were calling them sequentially. And since they committed the second, dead ball violation, we got the ball.

This has to be the reason. The ref mentioned something about “class” of technicals, but I didn’t see anything about live ball v dead ball.

 

[DT_PITT]

This has to be the reason. The ref mentioned something about “class” of technicals, but I didn’t see anything about live ball v dead ball.

The other thing the refs may have been trying to figure was when exactly Cal called Timeout which probably explains the live ball vs dead ball. I still don’t know why Austin was charged with a turnover on the play by play stat sheet though.

 

[Pittisit4me]

Zack's was indeed a live ball technical. The cal player's was dead ball as the clock stopped when they t'd up Zack. Having said that, these refs were indeed a little off today. Am I the only one who thinks Zack didn't deserve a T? I have seen so many times over the years when an offensive player catches his team's bucket and tosses it to the opposite team's player who is standing out of bounds along the baseline. It's not like he threw it at him when he wasn't looking or did it maliciously. The whole sequence was strange, but, I do think it helped adjust our team's intensity in the right direction.

 

[PittMan 72]

Thanks, but why wasn't Zach's a dead ball tech? And why does Zach have a turnover on the stat sheet also?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think that's it. Austin's technical was when he got the ball after Guillermo's dunk and threw it at (to) the Cal player. That was a live ball technical. Then the guy gently threw the ball back at Austin, but that was a dead ball technical because theoretically the clock stopped when Austin committed his infraction.

So they weren't calling concurrent technical fouls, they were calling them sequentially. And since they committed the second, dead ball violation, we got the ball.

Smart, strategic play by the vet, Austin. This worked out for us but this is a really stupid rule. Almost as stupid as awarding 2 points for a goaltend on a ball blocked out of bounds but then taking those points off the ball several minutes later so that not only did you not get those points, you lost possession on the ball blocked out of bounds.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

In the technical foul fest in the first half ...

GDG got a dunk, and Austin picked up the ball and tossed it DJ Campbell who threw it back at Austin.

Both were called for technicals, and the refs go to the monitor and Szelc gives Capel a T.

California hits 1 of 2 and Pitt gets the ball out of bounds.

I'm not 100% sure why Pitt gets possession there.

At first I thought since Pitt and Cal both got technicals, it went to alternating possession, but that wasn't it because the arrow remained with Pitt after the play.

In the play by play, Austin and Campbell are both charged with technicals and turnovers.

The only thing I can figure is that Zach gets his T first and (and is charged with the turnover then -- even though Pitt doesn't have possession? -- in scoring, you simply cannot have a turnover without possession as I would understand it).

Then Campbell gets his T and turnover giving possession back to Pitt?

(Capel's T has no impact on possession).

Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe the refs just screwed up.

The announcers said Austin’s was live ball and Campbell’s was dead ball.

 

[121rum]

Zack's was indeed a live ball technical. The cal player's was dead ball as the clock stopped when they t'd up Zack. Having said that, these refs were indeed a little off today. Am I the only one who thinks Zack didn't deserve a T? I have seen so many times over the years when an offensive player catches his team's bucket and tosses it to the opposite team's player who is standing out of bounds along the baseline. It's not like he threw it at him when he wasn't looking or did it maliciously. The whole sequence was strange, but, I do think it helped adjust our team's intensity in the right direction.

I don't think either player deserved a T, warnings would have been much more reasonable and probably prevented the game getting a little out of control like it did.

 

[DT_PITT]

I don't think either player deserved a T, warnings would have been much more reasonable and probably prevented the game getting a little out of control like it did.

@Joe the Panther Fan @TheSpecialSauce @Franb @MorningCoffee13 @Pittisit4me @KennyTheKangaroo

Thanks for all of the replies in the thread. Here's my take and remaining questions.

Zach tossed the ball at Campbell (which I agree did not need a technical).

California called timeout so Campbell tossed the ball back at Zack. (I think this is when the technicals on both were called, and this is the point where it get's complicated).

Zach's is considered a live ball technical since timeout had yet been called. Campbell's technical is considered after the timeout and therefore is the deadball technical requiring the change of possession.

What I still don't know is why Zack is charged with a turnover. I don't know how that can even work statistically.

Also, for @Sean Miller Fan -- I really, really doubt is was any kind of smart strategic play on Zach's part. That's kind of a silly assertion on your part (unless you are kind of joking of course).

 

[wbrpanther]

In the technical foul fest in the first half ...

GDG got a dunk, and Austin picked up the ball and tossed it DJ Campbell who threw it back at Austin.

Both were called for technicals, and the refs go to the monitor and Szelc gives Capel a T.

California hits 1 of 2 and Pitt gets the ball out of bounds.

I'm not 100% sure why Pitt gets possession there.

At first I thought since Pitt and Cal both got technicals, it went to alternating possession, but that wasn't it because the arrow remained with Pitt after the play.

In the play by play, Austin and Campbell are both charged with technicals and turnovers.

The only thing I can figure is that Zach gets his T first and (and is charged with the turnover then -- even though Pitt doesn't have possession? -- in scoring, you simply cannot have a turnover without possession as I would understand it).

Then Campbell gets his T and turnover giving possession back to Pitt?

(Capel's T has no impact on possession).

Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe the refs just screwed up.

An even better question was why did these guys jump thru all those hoops when it was a simple double infraction that was there for all to see? Call the techs, shoot what ever fouls need shot and play ball. No need for all the theatrics.

 

[Pittisit4me]

@Joe the Panther Fan @TheSpecialSauce @Franb @MorningCoffee13 @Pittisit4me @KennyTheKangaroo

Thanks for all of the replies in the thread. Here's my take and remaining questions.

Zach tossed the ball at Campbell (which I agree did not need a technical).

California called timeout so Campbell tossed the ball back at Zack. (I think this is when the technicals on both were called, and this is the point where it get's complicated).

Zach's is considered a live ball technical since timeout had yet been called. Campbell's technical is considered after the timeout and therefore is the deadball technical requiring the change of possession.

What I still don't know is why Zack is charged with a turnover. I don't know how that can even work statistically.

Also, for @Sean Miller Fan -- I really, really doubt is was any kind of smart strategic play on Zach's part. That's kind of a silly assertion on your part (unless you are kind of joking of course).

Are you sure he was charged with a turnover as a result of that play? If that is the case, the official scorer would have to explain that one to me as well.

 

[DT_PITT]

Are you sure he was charged with a turnover as a result of that play? If that is the case, the official scorer would have to explain that one to me as well.

Yes--it's on the official NCAA play by play posted on the Pitt website.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I still don’t know why Austin was charged with a turnover on the play by play stat sheet though.

I don't get that either. Doesn't make any sense at all. The Cal player should (and did) get a turnover. Austin should not.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I don't think either player deserved a T, warnings would have been much more reasonable and probably prevented the game getting a little out of control like it did.

That was what I thought as well. Just call the players over, tell them to cut that crap out, and play on.

 

[Pittnerski]

Austin didn’t deserve a T.

The Cal guard whipped the ball at him then ran up and got in his face, such that Madsen went and got him.

And Capel getting a T in the middle of it makes it all the more ridiculous.

But I’ll agree, that was the kind of egregiously bad call we needed to wake the crowd up and get the players going. They responded very well.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And Capel getting a T in the middle of it makes it all the more ridiculous.

Capel got told at least two or three times by the officials to stop. And he didn't. He and Curtis Aiken can try to sell the "I was just talking to my team" line, but when your team is in front of your bench and you are actually facing toward the scorer's table where the refs are doing the replay review (meaning your back is to your team), you aren't really talking to your team.

 

[DT_PITT]

Capel got told at least two or three times by the officials to stop. And he didn't. He and Curtis Aiken can try to sell the "I was just talking to my team" line, but when your team is in front of your bench and you are actually facing toward the scorer's table where the refs are doing the replay review (meaning your back is to your team), you aren't really talking to your team.

I agree about Capel not talking to his team, but Paul Szelc was doing at least as much, if not more, yelling at Capel than Capel was at him.

At one point, Capel kind of turned and walked away shaking his head and Szelc went toward him to continue yelling.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I agree about Capel not talking to his team, but Paul Szelc was doing at least as much, if not more, yelling at Capel than Capel was at him.

At one point, Capel kind of turned and walked away shaking his head and Szelc went toward him to continue yelling.

Szelc had a bad day. A really, really bad day.

 

[Franb]

Szelc had a bad day. A really, really bad day.

Maybe he needed some Alkaszelcer.

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

Hopefully this doesn’t have a negative impact on Zack’s ORTG

 

[KennyHeisman8]

Austin didn’t deserve a T.

The Cal guard whipped the ball at him then ran up and got in his face, such that Madsen went and got him.

And Capel getting a T in the middle of it makes it all the more ridiculous.

But I’ll agree, that was the kind of egregiously bad call we needed to wake the crowd up and get the players going. They responded very well.

Yeah, that’s the part that made the whole thing asinine. Austin did nothing, he walked away and the cal player lost his mind. I don’t blame capel at all for freaking out there.