Gotta love those idiot dwag fans lol.This made my year.
I think the refs did the right thing, particularly given who was involved.
With that out of the way, I've never seen a technical on the first instance of objects being thrown on the court. I've seen objects thrown on the court maybe a dozen times before, and every other time the crowd was issued a warning over the PA with a statement that included "next time will result in a technical."
Does anyone know if that was the first instance in the game? Is there a new rule or emphasis in enforcement that warrants an immediate technical?
As I understand (understood?) the rule, the main reason a T is not immediately assessed is because you can rarely prove which team's fan threw the object on the court. Maybe not the case last night? Even when it's pretty obvious, I've always seen a warning before a T. Particularly with .5 seconds left in a game, it's an odd time for that trend to be broken.I have no idea what the actual rule is but when did that ever stop me from commenting ...
I'd imagine it's at the ref's discretion. I can't imagine a scenario where they couldn't assess a T if something was thrown onto the court.
And didn't the object sorta hit a guy in this case? Probably an auto-T, if so.
As I understand (understood?) the rule, the main reason a T is not immediately assessed is because you can rarely prove which team's fan threw the object on the court. Maybe not the case last night? Even when it's pretty obvious, I've always seen a warning before a T. Particularly with .5 seconds left in a game, it's an odd time for that trend to be broken.
To your point, maybe it's always been the rule that a T is given, but I've never seen it enforced on the first occurrence.
Could be that the SEC didn't want Mississippi State to be in danger on the bubble by losing to UGA, so the fix got called in.
It wouldn't shock me if what you say is true, but I'd be surprised if the rules allow discretion over when to assess a technical for objects thrown on the court. Interpreting the scenario is about as black and white as it gets, unlike charge calls, flagrants, etc.No, I'm not suggesting the rule is that a T must be assessed. I'm suggesting that the rule may be that it's at the ref's discretion. Usually, as you say, they err on the side of caution because of uncertainty of who actually threw it. But they probably have the right to assess a T if they want.
It wouldn't shock me if what you say is true, but I'd be surprised if the rules allow discretion over when to assess a technical for objects thrown on the court. Interpreting the scenario is about as black and white as it gets, unlike charge calls, flagrants, etc.
The whole point of the rule book is to say "if this happens, then this is the response". Not "hey, if the guy gets elbowed in the face, use your best judgment as whether it was warranted."
Totally get that point of view. I'm just sayin', even with the flagrant 1 vs. flagrant 2 vs. common foul stuff, the rules attempt to remove ambiguity in interpretation. There is really no ambiguity as to whether something was thrown on the court, ever. Maybe random objects could fall from the ceiling? I don't know.lol @ you thinking an NCAA rulebook-related issue is less confusing than it should be.
Yeah but that's not as fun as saying they won because of the technical. Either way he made 2nd FT. My thought was the 3rd miss was on purpose due to the time remaining on the clock.keep in mind that even without the technical Miss St still had another FT coming. They missed the first of 2. So they had a second as well as a technical.
They hit the technical first and then missed the 2nd of 2.