Pre-Game Technical Fouls

[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.

[ChuckS]

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?

[ChuckS]

OOPS! Beat me to it!!

[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

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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?

[pfan1981]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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