Well you said that those were setting aside the rules in this situation. But I am good if you are good with the current answers.

Peace

Billy Mac:

Is the technical foul charged in the illegal dunking game or in the following game?
A: It is charged to the team and indirectly to the coach whose player dunked and is administered in the following game.

If in the illegal dunking game, is there a penalty for adding a name to the scorebook?
A: I don't know. Was there a name illegally added to the roster?

Is the indirect technical foul charged in the illegal dunking game or in the following game?
A: The following game in which the player who dunked will be participating.

Who sits, the illegal dunking coach, or the following game coach?
A: The following game coach.

Are the technical foul free throws taken in the illegal dunking game, or in the following game?
A: Following game.

Details ...
 

Thank you. Sounds like a plan.

If the first game player (who is not actually a team member in the second game) illegally dunks during halftime of the second game, does the penalty carry over to the next game in which he is a team member?

According to my state, the answer is yes IF, he is a player in the game that follows the half time of the game in which he dunked.

Have Your Act Together ...
 

Thanks. Very often when states screw around with NFHS rules they leave specific situational questions unanswered. It sounds like you guys have your act together, and have covered all the bases.

LMAO..sometimes we ain't dealing with geniuses!

Billy:

Are you channeling Uncle Miltie and stealing my jokes that I stole from others? LOL!

MTD, Sr.

I love when state governing bodies make up stuff that directly goes against playing rules.

Rant/Vent
 

If you are old enough and have been doing this long enough, you probably were schooled in an entirely different officiating philosophy than today's, which is dominated by automatics, required calls, limited discretion, and central office micromanaging. The situation that began this discussion is illustrative.

Sid Borgia, I believe, once said, "I don't call fouls, I dispense justice." Applied to school ball, that's an exaggeration, but the idea remains valid, embodied in notions like advantage/disadvantage and preventive officiating. When I began, we were taught to apply common sense to the rules and mechanics, then allowed to use our judgment and discretion in maintaining good game management.

Now, discretion is discouraged, and automatic calls of all sorts are mandated. I, for one, do not see this as improving the quality of officiating or of the flow of the game itself.

OK, I got that out of my system. I'm calm, now.

I disagree with the blanket statement that "discretion is discouraged."

The reason the "automatic" fouls were implemented was because officials were repeatedly ignoring points of emphasis and directives to clean up hand-checking because it "doesn't affect anything." Additionally, judgment in what was an "advantage" varied so widely by official that it was impossible for coaches and players to adjust. And quite frankly I still see and work with plenty of officials that don't call 10-1-4 (NFHS ref?) fouls as diligently as they should. The codifying of these fouls wouldn't have been necessary if officials had followed the directives to start with.

But on drives to the basket or violations, for example, discretion and judgment of advantage/disadvantage are still encouraged and taught as far as I'm concerned.

And in the OP, that's simply not a technical foul by rule unless one's state has issued guidance to the contrary.

Consistency ...
 

Now that I'm reaching the end of my officiating career I'm reminiscing about the guys I observed when I first started. The best guys back then (1980) didn't have perfect mechanics, couldn't figure their way through the proper rules for odd plays (correctable errors, etc.), and made up signals as they went along, but they could make the tough calls and fairly officiate and manage the game (there were some guys back then who could call a game and who had good mechanics, rule knowledge, and signals, some, but not many).

A long time hard ass coach (whose players, in three sports, would never say a disrespectful word to officials) recently passed away and was remembered at our last board meeting. An encounter was described between this coach and one of our old time veterans, who also since passed away. In the incident described the veteran just tossed the coach out of the game, no technical foul called, no free throws, he just tossed him out of the gym, and moved on with the game.

Today it's all about consistency, we can often be described as "robots". I'm all for consistency, it helps the game, but it has also taken much of the fun out of officiating basketball.

SC Official, your experience is different from mine. YMMV, so I will amend my remarks to address only the world I know, here in SE PA.

Around here, the only officials who talk about advantage/disadvantage and discretion are old-timers like me. At chapter meetings, we are much more likely to get, "This is what is required."

"Consistency" becomes chimerical and complete uniformity is impossible to mandate. Even taking into account the tendencies (or limitations) of individual officials, the game is simply too fast, too fluid. POEs are fine, but when the same points must be reiterated every season, maybe that's because they simply can not be met to anyone's satisfaction.

Would the flow and quality of the game (to borrow a phrase from another thread) really be improved by calling every two-hand touch, for example? Are we to apply advantage/disadvantage on drives to the basket but not to a player dribbling laterally at mid-court without advancing? In this world of mandates and POEs, if you accept some notion of discretion, you are already contradicting mandates.

Officials with good game management skills will often ignore meaningless automatics, in the interest of letting the game flow. Perhaps consequently, a bureaucrat will then decide, "We need to re-issue this POE because people aren't calling it."

What I see here is a conflict between pseudo-objective "consistency" and good game management. Good officials, with good judgment, don't need mandates and automatics; mediocre officials, with poor judgment, won't be improved by them.

I'm a crotchety, cynical old man: I much prefer "teach, then trust."

Blame coaches. They are the ones who write the rules and clamor for "consistency," leading to the black-and-white adjudications that you don't care for.

And again, blame officials who were ignoring POE's for years.

Also technology. When the film shows that one official is calling two hands on the ball handler and the other is "letting 'em play," that's a problem. Hence the implementation of automatic fouls.

This is what I heard someone say one time...

Between the free throw lines = RSBQ, automatics
Drives to the basket = start, develop, finish

I think this way when I officiate.

I have a buddy whose captain's meetings always contain the statement "from free throw line to free throw line keep your hands off the ball-handler".

I've been very frustrated this season and last in getting partners to clean up handsy on-ball defenders. It is really detrimental on smaller high school courts where the ball-handlers have less room to operate and in games where ball-handlers aren't as skilled.

I did that in a HS rec game this past spring. Coach said something personal to me that most definitely crossed the line, but was only heard by me, the table personnel (who are employees of the city rec department), and the normal HC who was acting as an assistant. I told the dude he had to go. No tech, no explanation to my partner, no reporting to the table.