Pre-Game Technical Fouls

[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.

[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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

...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.

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

Or is that the NCAAW citation you state?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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)

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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