Pre-Game Technical Fouls

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It is late and I getting senile in my old age. And we have discussed this play in the past and I am pretty sure there is either a NFHS Casebook Play or a NFHS Pre-Season Rules Interpretation that covers it (and some of us here on the Forum consider the CB Ruling/Pre-Season Rules Interpretation is incorrect). None-the-less, here is the Play as I remember it:


PLAY: With 8:00 on the game clock prior to the start of the game, Team A adds a Player to its Roster. With 5:00 on the game clock prior to the start of the game, Team B adds a Player to its Roster.

RULING: Each team is assessed an Administrative TF. The TFs, which constitute a FDF, are to be considered to have occurred simultaneously and there for no FTs are attempted by either team, and the game is started with a Jump Ball at Center Court.


There are some of us that believe that the RULING is not supported by Rule. We take the position that, yes the TFs are a FDF but did not occur simultaneously and therefore, each TF carries it own penalty and FTs are attempted for each TF in the order in which the TFs occurred, with the Ball put into Play is if the last FTs for the second TF is the only Foul that occurred.

That said, I cannot remember either the NFHS CB Play or in what year the NFHS Pre-Season Rules Interpretation the Play occurred.

Hopefully, one of the young guns on the Forum will do my work for me.

Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Do you recall your own posts?

From this thread: https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tart-game.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
NFHS has always been order of occurrence, so that's your answer.
The problem is that someone from the NFHS wrote a case play a couple of years ago which conflicts with the text of the rules and 6.4.1 Sit A. That case play is 3.4.3 Situation C and it states to treat any technical fouls by opposing teams prior to the start of the game as offsetting double fouls.
There is no way to resolve these conflicting rulings. Therefore, I will be going with the text of the actual rule and enforcing the penalties in the order in which they occur if such ever happens to me.

NevadaRef and I agree on this situtation with regard to NFHS CB Play 6.4.1 Sit. A and NFHS CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C. CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C was added to the 2013-14 NFHS Casebook. The sad part of the RULING for CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C is that it references CP Play 6.4.1 Sit. A to support its Ruling. I though that the NFHS Rules Committee would have cleaned up this mess before the start of the 2014-15 season and correct the RULLING in CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C to conform to CB Play 6.4.1 Sit. A.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Toledo, Ohio

---

Last edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.; Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:33pm. Reason: Changed "back up" to "suport' in the next to last sentence.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Nevada:

I knew I could count on you, . Thanks.

Our (Mark, Jr., and me) season starts on Wednesday.

Have a great season.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

FWIW, NCAAW agrees with "the new Mark" that both Ts are penalized in this situation. Start with 4 FTs and resume POI (the jump ball),

[billyu2]

Just to add to Mark, Nevada and Bob:

3.4.3 COMMENT describes the situation to be a double technical which hardly seems to fit the definition found in 4-19-8 b: "a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time." Both case plays (3.4.3 C and 6.4.1 A) fit very well by definition of a FDF: "a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock has started following the first."

[pfan1981]

How do you all keep these straight? A dunk and than opposing dunk we shoot them in the order they occurred. Scorebook technicals by both teams we treat it like a double tech and no shots. Anyone have any helpful advice?

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by pfan1981

How do you all keep these straight? A dunk and than opposing dunk we shoot them in the order they occurred. Scorebook technicals by both teams we treat it like a double tech and no shots. Anyone have any helpful advice?

Don't call anything you don't know how to administer properly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by pfan1981

How do you all keep these straight? A dunk and than opposing dunk we shoot them in the order they occurred. Scorebook technicals by both teams we treat it like a double tech and no shots. Anyone have any helpful advice?

I'm guessing that pregame book infractions must be considered to have occur together just as the game starts rather than the actual moment the book is changed.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm guessing that pregame book infractions must be considered to have occur together just as the game starts rather than the actual moment the book is changed.

That is the supported NFHS interpretation, yes. Agree or disagree at your own peril.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by pfan1981

How do you all keep these straight? A dunk and than opposing dunk we shoot them in the order they occurred. Scorebook technicals by both teams we treat it like a double tech and no shots. Anyone have any helpful advice?

Admin Ts vs. Player / Sub Ts.

[pfan1981]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Admin Ts vs. Player / Sub Ts.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Freddy]

A)

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NFHS has always been order of occurrence...There is no way to resolve these conflicting rulings.

or
B)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm guessing that pregame book infractions must be considered to have occur together just as the game starts rather than the actual moment the book is changed.

or
C)

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Admin Ts vs. Player / Sub Ts.

Are we going by unofficial consensus on this issue, or is there an actual NFHS interpretation that solves this apparent conundrum?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

A)
or
B)
or
C)


Are we going by unofficial consensus on this issue, or is there an actual NFHS interpretation that solves this apparent conundrum?

No. There is no NFHS Interpretation that solves this real conundrum.

MTD, Sr.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

No. There is no NFHS Interpretation that solves this real conundrum.



MTD, Sr.

Agree, though I do like bob jenkins's way of breaking it down. In the absence of any clear guidance, it certainly works for me and it fits the few case play interpretations we do have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

A)
or
B)
or
C)


Are we going by unofficial consensus on this issue, or is there an actual NFHS interpretation that solves this apparent conundrum?

B) and C) are really the same thing.

And, there's really no conflict -- although there is an interp that some don't like.

FWIW, NCAAW has the book T's as being separate (that is, both are enforced, shoot FTs at each end,...) -- and some are arguing that *that* interp is "wrong" and it should be treated as a double foul.