That "interp" you mention, is that a NFHS interpretation? Where can I find that?

Or is that the NCAAW citation you state?

Case 3.4.3C (I think)

Bob,
Thanx for the speedy response. 3.4.3C is a cause of the problem, as the COMMENT makes the universal statement, "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered 'approximately the same time.'" Which, of course, diametrically opposes 6.4.1F which also has each team assessed one technical foul prior to the game, but considered consecutive and penalized as such.
All of this is repetition, I know.
I was hoping you were referring to a separately published "Interpretation" (= "We screwed up and are masking it as a need to clarify as if it's your problem understanding us and not our problem publishing mistakes") somewhere.
Guess not. Correct?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but they really need to vet their revisions and changes and edits through us (this Forum) first before putting them in print. Again, I'm stating the obvious.

I view the COMMENT to be read in context, not as a blanket statement. I can see how others might read it differently.

Not diametrically opposed! The 6.4.1F situation involves player technicals, not team technicals. That's the key here.

Of course you could argue that players before the game are not players, but rather team members and bench personnel. This would be a fair point to make. But the interp is that pre-game dunks are charged to the individuals and indirectly to the head coach. This is more consistent with player and bench technicals than team technicals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technical Fouls (Player vs Team)
 

Is the difference due to the fact that in 6.4.1F those are player technicals, but the comment in 3.4.3C is referring to team technicals?

OOPS! Beat me to it!!

I see your line of reasoning. And I'm not saying I don't appreciate it.
But part of me thinks this is all a purely contrived rationalization on the part of well-intending officials to make sense out of a mistake published in the casebook. A defense for the indefensible. Making lemonade out of lemons.
How would the penalties be applied if at the 8 minute mark Coach A requested another player be added to the scorebook and then at the two minute mark B24 dunked? You'd have one of each of our contrived kinds of technical fouls. Consider them as occurring at "approximately the same time", thus no FT's and start the game with a jump ball? Or team B shoots two FT's, then team A, followed by a throw-in at the division line by team A?
Do I have a point, or do you think not?

I love the pointers everyone. So what about Freddy's situation which is an administrative technical at 8:00 and a dunk at 2:00? Do we consider this a double technical and shoot no throws or do them in the order they occurred?

Thanks to all of you for helping us grow as officials. pfan

Rule 10 says Freddy's first technical is a "team" technical. The second T is a player technical. The case play cited by Bob above, says "Both TEAM A and B are charged with a technical foul…" Then says "when each "TEAM" is assessed one technical prior to game".. double T occurs.

The facts in that case play show each team was charged with a TEAM technical. Those offset under the language of that case play. Freddys do not fit the case play. shoot them in the order they occurred.

Dunking in the pregame is not a player technical but, instead a bench technical. There are no players, by rule, only team members during the pregame.

It still gets charged directly to the team member. The "book" T gets charged *only* to the team.

That's the distinction.

I agree with shooting 4 FTs in the latest play (but I'm a little unsure of the order). And, what if A adds a team member at 8 minutes. B dunks at 6. B adds a team member at 4? Do the "book" Ts offset, and we just shoot 2 FTs? Or do we shoot 6? (I vote for shooting 2.)

Yes, bench technical is proper term. focused on the "team" part so much got lazy on the language.

I would offset team techs in Bob's OP and shoot 2 also.