What do you think.......... - Page 2

Jurassic Referee · #16 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 14, 2007, 09:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not under NCAA rules either. So there goes the "active college official" excuse.

The only thing I can think of is that he might be an IAABO rules interpreter. You know what they're like some times.

tomegun · #17 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 14, 2007, 09:41pm

I would suggest you might not want to believe what you supervisor tells you from now on. At least look things up for yourself because he/she is wrong. Plain and simple, being a college official does not mean you automatically know the rules. Just like high school basketball, officials take many paths to get to where they are. Unfortunately, many of them can get to a high level without knowing the rules and/or "gasp" being able to officiate.

Adam · #18 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 14, 2007, 11:39pm

Your supervisor is about two years behind in his rules knowledge.

swkansasref33 · #19 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 03:26pm

Wouldn't they be false double-fouls though?
Case Book Pg. 80 Rule 10.3.8

Jurassic Referee · #20 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 03:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Wouldn't they be false double-fouls though?
Case Book Pg. 80 Rule 10.3.8

Um, yeah....

It's a false double foul consisting of a common foul called on a team A player followed by a double technical foul on a player from each team. As such, it gets handled the exact way that's been posted so far.

I must be missing the point that you're trying to make. Could you clarify?

bob jenkins · #21 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 03:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Wouldn't they be false double-fouls though?
Case Book Pg. 80 Rule 10.3.8

There is a false double foul, the second half of which is a double foul (T's on both A2 and B2 for "exchanging greetings"). How does that change the ruling?

swkansasref33 · #22 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 03:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Um, yeah....

It's a false double foul consisting of a common foul called on a team A player followed by a double technical foul on a player from each team. As such, it gets handled the exact way that's been posted so far.

I must be missing the point that you're trying to make. Could you clarify?

Maybe the difference in the situation we went over is that they were 2 FLAGRANT T's, and not just two technicals. Here is the exact situation they gave us in our Meeting.

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. A Flagrant T is called on B #12, and B #12 is ejected. Before the fouls are reported, Team A #32 (not player who was fouled) shoves disqualified B #12. A Flagrant T is called, and A #32 is also ejected.

Answer-
The situation is a false double-foul (the second of which occurs befoer the clock is started following the first). And since a false double foul carries its own penalty-we would shoot two free throws fore each team and then Team B would take the ball out at the divison line

So you would: (administer penalties in order the fouls occured)
Shoot personal foul FT by A #42
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team A
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team B
Take the ball out at the division line by Team B

Jurassic Referee · #23 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Maybe the difference in the situation we went over is that they were 2 FLAGRANT T's, and not just two technicals. Here is the exact situation they gave us in our Meeting.

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. A Flagrant T is called on B #12, and B #12 is ejected. Before the fouls are reported, Team A #32 (not player who was fouled) shoves disqualified B #12. A Flagrant T is called, and A #32 is also ejected.

Answer-
The situation is a false double-foul (the second of which occurs befoer the clock is started following the first). And since a false double foul carries its own penalty-we would shoot two free throws fore each team and then Team B would take the ball out at the divison line

So you would: (administer penalties in order the fouls occured)
Shoot personal foul FT by A #42
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team A
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team B
Take the ball out at the division line by Team B

Um, yeah.......

That's a false double foul but it's a different situation entirely. You handle it exactly the same way as you handle the situation in the original post of this thread..i.e. you penalize each foul in the order that they occur. In your case you've got a foul followed by a false double foul. In the OP there is just a false double foul. The difference is that in your situation, the official ruled that that the technical fouls by B12 and A32 weren't committed at approximately the same time and thus didn't meet the definition of a double foul. Iow, apples and oranges from the original situation posted.

I still fail to see what point you're trying to make.

swkansasref33 · #24 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 04:11pm

How is the situation different? In his case, you have a rebounding foul, then two technicals. I don't see the difference, other than the Flagrant T's. Can you clarify the difference for me please?

Jurassic Referee · #25 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 04:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

How is the situation different? In his case, you have a rebounding foul, then two technicals. I don't see the difference, other than the Flagrant T's. Can you clarify the difference for me please?

In the case that you posted, the official ruled that the flagrant technical fouls did NOT occur at the same time. They were different plays iow. They were sequential, not together. If he hadda ruled that they occurred at approximately the same time, then they would have been a double technical foul as per NFHS rule 4-19-8(b). He didn't rule that the technical fouls occurred at the same time, so they fall under NFHS rule 4-19-9 instead.

The situation that you posted is completely different than the original post of this thread, and as such is covered by a different rule.

bob jenkins · #26 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 04:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by swkansasref33

Maybe the difference in the situation we went over is that they were 2 FLAGRANT T's, and not just two technicals. Here is the exact situation they gave us in our Meeting.

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. A Flagrant T is called on B #12, and B #12 is ejected. Before the fouls are reported, Team A #32 (not player who was fouled) shoves disqualified B #12. A Flagrant T is called, and A #32 is also ejected.

It has nothing to do with the fouls being flagrant. Compare your play (above) to a very similar play:

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. At the same time A43 shoves B12 back. A Flagrant T is called on B #12 and on A43 and both players are ejected.

Ruling:

No FTs are shot for the double T.

A42 shoots two FTs with players on the line and the ball remains in play after the second FT.

See the difference?

johnSandlin · #27 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 04:56pm

Jurassic Referee,

No disrespect intended, but my supervisor is bar none the best rules based official that I know of be it high school rules or college rules. I trust his knowledge completely.

Jurassic Referee · #28 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 05:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnSandlin

Jurassic Referee,

No disrespect intended, but my supervisor is bar none the best rules based official that I know of be it high school rules or college rules. I trust his knowledge completely.

John, if your supervisor is the best rules based official in your area, then you have a major, major problem, rules-wise imo.

Your supervisor is unequivocally and completely wrong, by the very explicit rules already cited. Your supervisor would be wise to send this play into the NFHS office and get their ruling on it. Your supervisor would also be wise to send this play into the NCAA office and get their ruling on it also. As it stands right now, your supervisor has the unique distinction of being totally and completely wrong in two different rulesets. And, unfortunately, his followers are drinking the koolaid.

johnSandlin · #29 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 06:30pm

J. Referee,

Thank you for your thoughts. I still disagree, but I do appreciate your thoughts and opinions concerning my original post.

Jurassic Referee · #30 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 15, 2007, 07:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnSandlin

J. Referee,

Thank you for your thoughts. I still disagree, but I do appreciate your thoughts and opinions concerning my original post.

John, quite seriously, I think that you would be wise in this case to check out another source on this one other than the supervisor that you mentioned. Disregard me, but....some of the other officials in this thread who also disagreed with your supervisor are very competent college officials and are also extremely reliable sources when it comes to rules interpretations. I'd sure stop and think myself if they collectively told me that I had a ruling wrong on something.

Just saying.....