Pre-Game Technical Fouls

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.