Pre-Game Technical Fouls
 

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.

Do you recall your own posts? ;)

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

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Nevadaref https://forum.officiating.com/images...s/viewpost.gif
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.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

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
<hr style="color:#D1D1E1; background-color:#D1D1E1" size="1"> 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.
https://forum.officiating.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

Nevada:

I knew I could count on you, ;). Thanks.

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

Have a great season.

MTD, Sr.

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),

3.4.3 situation c, comment
 

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."

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.:D

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. [emoji1]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Admin Ts vs. Player / Sub Ts.

That makes sense. Thanks.

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.

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

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.

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.