technical foul

[NorthSide]

This happened in a high school summer league game:

A1 is dribbling the ball upcourt with B1 agressively defending him. A1 does not have great handles, so he is struggling with keeping possession of the ball. Finally, in disgust, he picks up his dribble and "fakes" throwing the ball in B1's face. A technical foul is called on A1. A couple of seconds later, B1 realizes a technical foul has been called on A1 and he (B1) "claps" vigorously in A1's face. A technical foul is then called on B1. The referee proceeds with a double-technical foul, thus going to the alternate-possession arrow (where B secures the ball). Was this handled correctly?

[Jurassic Referee]

Yes, I think. Your post doesn''t say whether FT's were shot or not. There are no free throws shot in a double technical foul, just the AP. Rule 4-19-7(b) is the rules reference.

[NorthSide]

Could it have been handled in one of the following ways:

1. Intentional technical foul on A1. Technical foul on B1. B2 shoots two shots. Then, instead of giving the ball to team B at the division line, go to the alternate-possession arrow. Where, again, Team B secures possession.

2. Intentional technical foul on A1. Technical foul on B1. B2 shoots two shots. Then, instead of going to the alternate-possession arrow, ball is given to Team A (due to Team B's technical foul).

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Yes, I think. Your post doesn''t say whether FT's were shot or not. There are no free throws shot in a double technical foul, just the AP. Rule 4-19-7(b) is the rules reference.

JR, isn't this a false double?

The first T caused a dead ball, THEN you had a second T for taunting. I'm leaning toward shooting them in the order they occured. They are two seperate acts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

JR, isn't this a false double?

The first T caused a dead ball, THEN you had a second T for taunting. I'm leaning toward shooting them in the order they occured. They are two seperate acts.

BZ, I honestly can't say that I think that you're wrong. Or that you're right either. We've gone around several times on this one before, if I remember right.

R4-19-7 just specifies that double fouls have to occur at "approximately the same time". There's no mention of live ball/dead ball anywhere in the description. Usually on any double foul, including the most common one in post play, you don't really have 2 exactly simultaneous fouls occurring. One will usually occur before the other, followed by retaliation. One of the characteristics of double personals and double technicals is that they also both specify that two opponents(iow the 2 opposing players involved in that particular play) must commit them. A false double foul(R4-19-8) is different in that it doesn't have to be opponents(it can be any member of either team), and that there must be an attribute of a double foul missing. Usually that attribute happens to be either the "occuring at approximately the same time" part or the "opponent vs. team member" part.

I think that you can make a good argument for either call. The reason that I like the double technical foul in cases like this is that neither team usually comes out of it with an advantage. In the play above, A1 lost his cool and got the deserved T, but did he goad B1 into responding and getting consequently T'd up also? If you think that happened, then a false double is gonna give team A an advantage in that they will be getting a possession without using the arrow. I think that it's the same philosophy as calling double fouls in the post. If you did call a personal foul followed by an almost-at-exactly-the-same-time retaliation T, then someone is getting an extra advantage out of the false double foul call.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 6th, 2004 at 04:22 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by NorthSide
Could it have been handled in one of the following ways:

1. Intentional technical foul on A1. Technical foul on B1. B2 shoots two shots. Then, instead of giving the ball to team B at the division line, go to the alternate-possession arrow. Where, again, Team B secures possession.

2. Intentional technical foul on A1. Technical foul on B1. B2 shoots two shots. Then, instead of going to the alternate-possession arrow, ball is given to Team A (due to Team B's technical foul).

No in both cases. You can call it a double technical foul with no shots and an AP, or you can call it a false double foul, take the fouls in the order that they occured and shoot the FT's for each T,followed by an A throw-in for B's T which occured last. There are no other choices, by rule, that I know of.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

BZ, I honestly can't say that I think that you're wrong. Or that you're right either. We've gone around several times on this one before, if I remember right.

R4-19-7 just specifies that double fouls have to occur at "approximately the same time". There's no mention of live ball/dead ball anywhere in the description. Usually on any double foul, including the most common one in post play, you don't really have 2 exactly simultaneous fouls occurring. One will usually occur before the other, followed by retaliation. One of the characteristics of double personals and double technicals is that they also both specify that two opponents(iow the 2 opposing players involved in that particular play) must commit them. A false double foul(R4-19-8) is different in that it doesn't have to be opponents(it can be any member of either team), and that there must be an attribute of a double foul missing. Usually that attribute happens to be either the "occuring at approximately the same time" part or the "opponent vs. team member" part.

I think that you can make a good argument for either call. The reason that I like the double technical foul in cases like this is that neither team usually comes out of it with an advantage. In the play above, A1 lost his cool and got the deserved T, but did he goad B1 into responding and getting consequently T'd up also? If you think that happened, then a false double is gonna give team A an advantage in that they will be getting a possession without using the arrow. I think that it's the same philosophy as calling double fouls in the post. If you did call a personal foul followed by an almost-at-exactly-the-same-time retaliation T, then someone is getting an extra advantage out of the false double foul call.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 6th, 2004 at 04:22 PM]

My Partner and I had something like this happen to us this season.

#1 team in the state on the road against a team they should crush, they aren't. It has been a tight, physical game from the start, but the #1 team is starting to pull away late in the 4th quarter.

My partner has a foul for a 1 and 1, as he reports it, the big kid for the home team walks by and gives a shoulder to the #1 teams' star player. Whack, I T him, now I'm reporting and my partner gets the star player for clapping in the kid's face.

We shot the 1 and 1 with nobody in the lane, then went to the arrow. In discussing it after the game we both thought we could/should have gone 1 and 1, 2 shots for the T, then shoot 2 at the other in for the second T. We thought that the line, "At approximately the same time," gave us an out for how we handled it, but we still had doubts.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

No in both cases. You can call it a double technical foul with no shots and an AP, or you can call it a false double foul, take the fouls in the order that they occured and shoot the FT's for each T,followed by an A throw-in for B's T which occured last. There are no other choices, by rule, that I know of.

No other choices in high school rules, right? In college, mightn't there be a POI complication?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[B}No other choices in high school rules, right? In college, mightn't there be a POI complication? [/B]

The POI makes it easier in college -- it's either no shots and POI (double T), or 2 shots for each team and POI (false double T)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

My partner has a foul for a 1 and 1, as he reports it, the big kid for the home team walks by and gives a shoulder to the #1 teams' star player. Whack, I T him, now I'm reporting and my partner gets the star player for clapping in the kid's face.

We shot the 1 and 1 with nobody in the lane, then went to the arrow. In discussing it after the game we both thought we could/should have gone 1 and 1, 2 shots for the T, then shoot 2 at the other in for the second T. We thought that the line, "At approximately the same time," gave us an out for how we handled it, but we still had doubts.

[/B][/QUOTE]I kinda like the way that you actually handled the situation. The big kid from the home team initiated the incident. The star player from the other team then retaliated. If you shoot all the FT's for the T's in the order of occurence, then the home team is gonna comes out of the situation with an advantage- i.e. the subsequent throw-in after they shoot the last 2 FT's- even though their player was the one who started the crap. The punishment seems to fit the crime more the way that you actually did it, imo. As Bob pointed out, the NCAA rule using the POI seems to be a much easier and fairer way to handle these calls.