Here was an interesting play that occured in one of my games.

A1 is fouled on the wing (non shooting, no bonus) by B1. After the whistle A1 continues to drive, though slowly to the basket (all other players have stopped) A1 jumps up and appears to want to lay in or maybe dunk the ball. But before he gets up to the ring B2 comes and garbs him around the waist, nothing flagarant or rough but clearly not wanting A1 to but the ball in his teams basket during the dead ball period.

One of my patners calls double T's on Al and B2. A1 gets an indirect for attempting to dunk a ball during a deadball period and B2 gets an intentional for contact during a deadball period. We cancel the T's and go with POI.

Here is my question reading the rule book I see 3 possible calls

1) double T's (live or dead) are when 2 opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time. PENALTY - No free throws, charge fouls to players and POI. This is what we did.

2) A false double is when fouls occur when fouls by both teams, the second occurring before the game clock is started after it is stopped for the first but an aspect of a double is missing. (the part that doesn't fit for me is that the A1's T did not stop the game clock. A player foul on a drive did)

3) Then there is simultaneous T's- Direct or indirect and occur when there is a technical foul committed by each team, at approximately the same time, NOT by opponents against each other. Maybe this is what we had. A1 T is not against B2 the player exactly. In this case each foul carries its own penalty and then POI.

There are a few question I have. First I am not sure that A1 was going to attempt to dunk the ball so I was not super happy with the indirect T. But I do feel it was unsportsmen like to continue to drive and make it "appear" he was going to do something. I don't know if it makes a big difference but I would have called an unsportsmenlike T on A1. Given that does that change which one of the above 3 senarios would you apply.

Personally I am a fan of #1 ring them up with the player T's then cancel each other and go POI. If not #1 then I think #3 is the next best.

I hope that makes some sense. I am interested in your thoughts.

My first thought is......NCAA rules? You didn't say.

Yes sorry NCAA men's. I put it in the title of my thread but not in the message itself.

What are you sorry for? I'm the sorry-a$$ moron that didn't read the title- like I shoulda. LOL.

You have an indirect T (attempting to dunk a dead ball) followed by an intentional T (non-flagrant dead ball contact). Sounds like simultaneous T's to me. Each foul carries its own penalty, so A gets the ball at the midcourt line for B's intentional T after each team gets 2 free throws.

You've got yourself quite a situation there, Dewey. The easy way to handle it is to call it a false double foul. You have the unsportsmanlike T on A1 and then the intentional T on B1. That's easy, b/c you assess and penalize them in order. 2 FTs for B, 2 FTs for A, then A gets the ball at midcourt.

If you rule that the fouls happened at the same time, then I think by rule (double technicals)you don't shoot any FTs and go to the POI. But that seems unfair, b/c Team A should get the ball due to the "intentional" part of B1's foul.

I think I'd go with FDF.

Can I quote you? (Over and over...) :D

What was the tone of the game? Had they been jawing at each other? Was it tense in any way? In a normal game, I'm not sure I would've had anything other that telling them to, in the words of an esteemed collegue, "Knock that sh!t off." How do you know it was an attempt at a dunk and not a lay-in? Also, you said the contact was neither flagrant or rough, so wouldn't that normally be ignored? Now, that said, if there was any possibility of it escalating, I would nip it in the bud quickly with two unsporting T's; report them on each player and go to POI.

M&M it was the second of back to back nights that the two teams played each other, so there wasn't a lot of love lots. But nothing was really unusual or chippy but this had a very slight edge to it.

I guess the question is WHEN does A1's T occur? Like I say I wasn't sold on the attempted dunk call but it to me it was more unsportsmen like to continue to play after the whistle. If A1 did not do that I do not believe B2 would have done anything. But if B2 doesn't grab A1 I don't know if we have a T on A1, unless he does try and dunk the ball. It was a wierd play.

Looking back I think similateous T's is the right call but man is that a lot of explaining to coaches. Double T's and cancelling the shots was a REALLY EASY SELL and everyone GOT IT. Plus one of my mentors likes to say "don't call things you have to explain". I know that isn't a hard and fast rule but I have found the less time I spend explaining calls the better my games go.

Anyways thanks for the feedback and hopefully I don't have that again.

In a normal game, I'm not sure I would've had anything other that telling them to, in the words of an esteemed collegue, "Knock that sh!t off." [/B][/QUOTE]I presume that you are kidding and that you really wouldn't say "sh!t" to a kid.

Okay so what if the orignal foul had been team B's 7th or more of the half. Then we have the indirect T (attempting to dunk a dead ball) on A1, followed by an intentional T (non-flagrant dead ball contact)on B2.

I call these T's simultaneous and give team B 2 shots and Team A 2 shots for the T's but team A should get the ball because of the intentional T on B. Does A1 shot the two shot bonus and then team A get the ball or does play continue after the bonus shots?

Thanks

The bonus is not relevant. All fouls are T's. The intentional foul is an intentional T.

I never kid.

I've seen enough players continue on after the whistle, and usually it's nothing, other than "Knock that sh!t off, and give me the damn ball." Or something like that. ;) But you said this game, or at least this play, had a slight edge to it, so I think it's a good idea to send the message to the players that this, or anything worse, won't be tolerated. Like you said, the simultaneous T's were easy to explain, neither team acquired an advantage, and everyone got the message. I'm not sure you or your partner would get too much flak, if any, from a supervisor for handling it like you did.

What extra explaining? The penalty for simultaneous Ts is the same as the penalty for double Ts -- no FTs and POI. Since the "attempted dunk" wasn't a T "against" an opponent, I don't think you could have double Ts.

Interesting how different regions have different 'codes of conduct'. For instance, in my area I could never get away with telling a player "Knock that sh!t off, and give me the damn ball."

I would have to modify that slightly and say "Knock that sh!t off, and give me the damn ball, @sshole."

As they say, when in Rome...

Bob, normally I wouldn't say anything but I actually took the time to look this up dammit, so we're all gonna get it right!

According to the chart in Appendix IV simultaneous T's carry their own penalty. Double T's are merely POI, no shots. By definition this cannot be double T's. The false double T does carry the same penalty as the simultaneous T's. In the original sitch the two Ts are simultaneous, not false double, by definition.

The proper procedure is each team gets 2 FTs for the T's, A gets the ball at the midline due to the intentional T. If A was in the bonus on the *original* foul then A shoots their 1&1.

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.