Talk:Technical foul

message: Questionable circumstances related to intentional and technical fouls at the end of two games on March 1st and 4th of 2006.
#1. Duke vs. Florida State.  With time remaining in the game and Duke 
    behind, Duke commits an intentional foul just prior to the Florida     
    State home crowd rushing the floor in apparent celebration.  A technical 
    foul was called on the Florida State crowd.  Duke shoots two (2) technical
    foul shots first followed by Florida State shooting two (2)foul shots as
    the result of the intentional foul. 
Opinion based on the rules of basketball:
    Duke was never awarded posession of the ball following their foul shots as
    a result of a technical foul.  Florida State should have shot their
    penalty shots first because the Duke intentional foul occured first.  Duke
    should have shot their technical foul shots next followed by posession of
    the ball.  This may have changed the result of the game as did the proper
    sequence of events in the game below.
#2. George Washington vs. Charlotte. Similar intentional foul/technical foul
    calls as Duke vs. Florida State (above).  GW was behind and intentionally 
    fouled Charlotte with time remaining in the game.  A techical foul was 
    called on a Charlotte player for the flagrant swinging of his elbows
    resulting in contact with a GW player. Charlotte shot two (2) foul shots
    first as a result of the intentional foul followed by GW shooting two (2)
    technical fouls shots PLUS retention of the ball which resulted in a game
    winning basket. 
Is there a different penalty given for a bench (crowd) technical foul vs. a player technical foul?
----
In the instance of a crowd technical, the call in NCAA would be an indirect technical foul while the player technical foul that you are probably speaking of is a direct technical foul (though a player can be charged with an indirect but that is beside the point right now). Now in your question about the administration of the fouls in the first instance, it was indeed done correctly. For indirect technical fouls, the enforcement is two shots and then you administer the ball from the point of interruption instead of awarding the ball to the offended team. So in this instance the POI (point of interruption) would be the intentional foul which in of itself is two shots and ball at the out of bounds spot closest to the foul.
In your second instance, the reason GW got the ball back was because the flagrant swinging elbows is considered a flagrant technical foul which means the ball is awarded to offended team.
So for future situations remember this, for indirect/direct technical fouls, the penalty is two shots and then go to the POI. For all other technical fouls (flagrant, intentional), it's two shots and ball at halfcourt. Of course, this only applies to NCAA.
--AllPurposeGamer 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone have information as to when and by whom the technical foul was invented? Who was the first person to be hit with a "T"? Who was the first ref to issue one? 71.142.73.145 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the NBA has always ejected on the second T (though an ejection on the first one is also possible). The colleges and high schools changed the rule to ejection on the second T I believe in the late '80s, but I don't know the exact year. Actually, a coach can pick up a third T if the first one or two T's are "indirect," i.e., called on bench personnel but indirectly also given to the coach. AFAIK, the NBA and FIBA make no such distinction. 69.42.13.45 (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the "T" 

message: How many technical fouls were committed at home versus away?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.165.84 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical fouls