01-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Hard to say how much real contact was involved in Boothe\'s "elbow" technical (looked like a lot of arm and a lot of acting for emphasis by the UCLA player). But if safety and sending a message to all players is the concern, I can go with it.
However, if refs are going to the monitor for this kind of borderline technical play, I don\'t understand why refs (and the league) allow players to undercut (take out an opposing player\'s feet) -- with no technical foul.
To me, the undercut is much more deserving of an automatic technical foul, and you rarely need a monitor to verify it. But it seems like if you put the phrase "going for the ball" in front of a undercut play, there is never a technical called -- and too often no foul called. The safety standard is missing there. (Kayla was the victim of one of those undercuts several games back; and I cringe every time I see that undercut play in any game, against any team.)
So if the refs (and the league) are going to have an automatic technical rule for safety, I\'d like to see them quickly add the \'undercut\' to those rules that they already have for the \'elbow\'.
However, if refs are going to the monitor for this kind of borderline technical play, I don\'t understand why refs (and the league) allow players to undercut (take out an opposing player\'s feet) -- with no technical foul.
To me, the undercut is much more deserving of an automatic technical foul, and you rarely need a monitor to verify it. But it seems like if you put the phrase "going for the ball" in front of a undercut play, there is never a technical called -- and too often no foul called. The safety standard is missing there. (Kayla was the victim of one of those undercuts several games back; and I cringe every time I see that undercut play in any game, against any team.)
So if the refs (and the league) are going to have an automatic technical rule for safety, I\'d like to see them quickly add the \'undercut\' to those rules that they already have for the \'elbow\'.