Pregame melee

[Ed Maeder]

For an administrative tech there is no indirect on the coach. Home coach gets nothing but a foul towards team-foul count.

[jalons]

We realized the indirect technical foul to the home coach was incorrect after the game when we looked in the book. We also learned that the foul is counted towards the team foul count. Two mistakes and the game hasn't started yet.

Is there a justification to filing this under the "order the fouls occur in" philosophy, with regards to how to begin the game? My thought process at the time was that the game hadn't begun, so this is still the same dead-ball period, although the two acts were definitely separate and one definitely happened after the other.

As I read false double fouls (4-19-9), there have to be fouls by both teams (which there was), the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first (which I assume happened here because the game clock hadn't started). The fouls were not against each other, so this has to be my situation.

The definition of Point of Interruption (4-36) says...double technical...., so the false double technical causes the ball to be put in play under the "order the fouls occur" philosophy.

Did I answer my own question?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jalons

We realized the indirect technical foul to the home coach was incorrect after the game when we looked in the book. We also learned that the foul is counted towards the team foul count. Two mistakes and the game hasn't started yet.

Is there a justification to filing this under the "order the fouls occur in" philosophy, with regards to how to begin the game? My thought process at the time was that the game hadn't begun, so this is still the same dead-ball period, although the two acts were definitely separate and one definitely happened after the other.

As I read false double fouls (4-19-9), there have to be fouls by both teams (which there was), the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first (which I assume happened here because the game clock hadn't started). The fouls were not against each other, so this has to be my situation.

The definition of Point of Interruption (4-36) says...double technical...., so the false double technical causes the ball to be put in play under the "order the fouls occur" philosophy.

Did I answer my own question?

Yep. All of that is correct. Just think of what you learned from that game!

[jalons]

Supplying the scorer with the names, numbers, and starting lineup has always been presented to me as meaning that the information has to be in the scorebook by the 10 minute mark.

In our case that evening, the visiting scorebook (with their lineup) was the only paperwork at the table. The home team's lineup didn't show up until the assistant coach brought their scorebook out at the 4:30 mark. So in that instance, the penalty was correct for violating 10-1.

If the coach marks his starters on a piece of paper with the lineup and leaves that at the table before the 10:00 mark, that would satisfy this requirement?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by jalons

If the coach marks his starters on a piece of paper with the lineup and leaves that at the table before the 10:00 mark, that would satisfy this requirement?

Yes

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yes

Shouldn't that be:

Yes.?
(The preceeding has been brought to you in rememberance of Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy.)

I originally thought early in my career that the official book had to be filled out by the 10-minute mark. I learned pretty quickly that a less-than-honorable home team scorekeeper could take advantage of going to the restroom at that particular time, then ask for a T to start the game because the lineup wasn't in the book! Thank goodness I had a veteran partner...

[tjones1]

When I'm R, I've just found it a lot easier to start off with a T. That way I don't have to worry about my toss being straight or not. Much, much easier!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Shouldn't that be:

Yes.?
(The preceeding has been brought to you in rememberance of Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy.)

Sure