There will be people who defend the technical foul against Isaac Humphries as being a 'strict interpretation' of the rules. There will be hair splitting and as much scrutiny as is given to Supreme Court cases and the nuance they carry.
Here's the problem: Even if there was a rule "mandating" a technical when a player slams the ball down, and even if Humphries' ball slam met the criteria, then the decision to cite that rule and justify a strict interpretation/enforcement actually makes the referee and his defenders hypocrites.
(1) No referee in the country in any major sport applies the rule book strictly in every game, in every situation, regardless of circumstances as only a human being can ascertain them to be. Intent is obviously a factor frequently taken into account. That's only one of the circumstances. Intentional fouls are interpreted not only loosely but comically, throughout modern basketball history. The travel in the open court in the NBA and increasingly in college. Only a few.
(2) Given point one (1) above, it then makes the referee who justifies a 'strict interpretation' as the indisputable rationale (this is only hypothetically, I don't know for certain whether the rules mandated a tech in those cases) a hypocrite for failing to apply the same strict interpretation of the entire rulebook in every game, in every other situation, regardless of circumstances.
(3) Beyond a hypocritical enforcement policy, it also is more egregious given the obviously mitigating factors in this situation: (a) Humphries wasn't angry/lashing out, (b) the game situation, (c) the need to let players decide the outcome and the irrelevance of that action to the game as it had been played.
So -- before anyone tries to justify the technical foul on a 'strict interpretation of the rules' standard, be prepared to call out the hypocrisy of any referee ever (that's every single one of them) who has intentionally not interpreted a rule strictly. Speeding five MPH over the limit as the legal example.
Here's the problem: Even if there was a rule "mandating" a technical when a player slams the ball down, and even if Humphries' ball slam met the criteria, then the decision to cite that rule and justify a strict interpretation/enforcement actually makes the referee and his defenders hypocrites.
(1) No referee in the country in any major sport applies the rule book strictly in every game, in every situation, regardless of circumstances as only a human being can ascertain them to be. Intent is obviously a factor frequently taken into account. That's only one of the circumstances. Intentional fouls are interpreted not only loosely but comically, throughout modern basketball history. The travel in the open court in the NBA and increasingly in college. Only a few.
(2) Given point one (1) above, it then makes the referee who justifies a 'strict interpretation' as the indisputable rationale (this is only hypothetically, I don't know for certain whether the rules mandated a tech in those cases) a hypocrite for failing to apply the same strict interpretation of the entire rulebook in every game, in every other situation, regardless of circumstances.
(3) Beyond a hypocritical enforcement policy, it also is more egregious given the obviously mitigating factors in this situation: (a) Humphries wasn't angry/lashing out, (b) the game situation, (c) the need to let players decide the outcome and the irrelevance of that action to the game as it had been played.
So -- before anyone tries to justify the technical foul on a 'strict interpretation of the rules' standard, be prepared to call out the hypocrisy of any referee ever (that's every single one of them) who has intentionally not interpreted a rule strictly. Speeding five MPH over the limit as the legal example.
