Is a simultaneous technical foul any time there are two different types of T's that occur at the same time? For example, during a dead ball, A1 swears at B1 and B1 intentionally contacts A1 at the same time.

These are technicals committed by opponents against each other. But one is a direct T for unsporting conduct while the other is an intentional T. So is it a double T, or is a simultaneous T? The answer to that will greatly affect how we administer the sitch.

I'm confused. In the 2006 book, bottom of page 169 in the Foul/Penalty Chart is the listing for "Simultaneous T" -- it clearly lists "no FTs.

The chart on page 153 (10-24 Summary -- Administration of Double Fouls) lists the same thing.

Double fouls are when 2 players commit a foul (personal or T) against each other at about the same time.

When A1 swears at B1, is he actually committing a foul *against* B1?

Well I'll be damned...I was looking at the 2005 book.

This is NOT 1 of the changes called out for 2006, is it???

Or maybe it is. Now I'm confused...

Was Rome full of @ssholes?

Ok, here is where the fun ensues...

I'm sure we all appreciate the time you took out of your busy day to actually look this up,;) ... but, in a game situation where I picture this happening, I don't know if I want to try to explain to everyone the subtle differences between simultaneous T's, double T's, false double T's, intentional T's, etc. As Dewey1 mentioned, it was easy to explain the double T's, everyone got what happened and how it was administered. There may be times where the subtle distinctions do make a difference, but in this case, doesn't it make sense to handle it as it was?

Depends on what county of Rome we're talking about. [/quote][/b]

Ok, here is where the fun ensues...

I'm sure we all appreciate the time you took out of your busy day to actually look this up,;) ... but, in a game situation where I picture this happening, I don't know if I want to try to explain to everyone the subtle differences between simultaneous T's, double T's, false double T's, intentional T's, etc. As Dewey1 mentioned, it was easy to explain the double T's, everyone got what happened and how it was administered. There may be times where the subtle distinctions do make a difference, but in this case, doesn't it make sense to handle it as it was? [/B][/QUOTE]

Most of the time, yes.

But since I have this test to take I don't care right now about the best way, the easiest way, the smartest way or any other way except the correct way by rule. And I already learned something: this year, they want us to use the 2006 book! NOT the 2005 book! Cool, eh?

Isn't it still 2005?

(I'm just trying to help you out here.)

Hey, that's question 27!

(email me the answer, ok? tia)

Okay so I just looked at the 2006 rules as well and it says that with simulataneous T's there is no shots. This is clearly, in my mind, different than the 2005 book, so why is it not mentioned as a rule change for this year? Am I missing something? Or was this a rule change last year and I am forgeting? HELP.

Know this makes more sense in my game. Call them simultaneus, charge the fouls to the players, but shot nothing for them. Easy sell and the correct call to boot, I like it.

Dan you mention if team A was in bonus from the *original* foul then they would shot 1 and 1. I agree, but my question is do they do this with no line up and still get the ball at the division line because of the intentional T by B2? In other words team A 4 shots and ball and team B 2 shots. Or just play live from the 1 and 1.

Chuck in your situation where A1 swears at B1 and B1 then gets an intentional T against A1, I believe those are double T's - 2 T's by players AGAINST each other. That is the key to me that they are AGAINST each other. The problem in my game was that A1's T was not against anyone really. That is why I think the correct call is simultaneous.

Great discussion and thanks again for the input.