NFHS Casebook Play Confusion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The case ruling is consistent with the NCAA ruling
"When there are administrative fouls by both teams for violating 10-2.2a, the fouls shall offset with no freee throws awarded to either team."

This seems like a reasonable distinction, if they would word it that way.

Dunking is not an administrative T.

[johnSandlin]

This was brought to our attention yesterday at my association's meeting and per our assignor/supervisor (former D1 woman's official) the situation in CBP 3.4.3C deals with ADMINISTRATIVE T's only. Our state association office and along with the NFHS office confirmed this and also confirmed that they (the NFHS) would amend the wording.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

This seems like a reasonable distinction, if they would word it that way.

Dunking is not an administrative T.

Who is the technical foul charged to for dunking? 1) Direct to the player, team count. Direct to the player, indirect to the coach because the player is considered bench personnel, and 1 foul to team count or 3) just a team technical foul that isn't charged to anyone?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Who is the technical foul charged to for dunking? 1) Direct to the player, team count. Direct to the player, indirect to the coach because the player is considered bench personnel, and 1 foul to team count or 3) just a team technical foul that isn't charged to anyone?

See 10 -1 and 10-4 --- which section it's in will give you your answer

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Who is the technical foul charged to for dunking? 1) Direct to the player, team count. Direct to the player, indirect to the coach because the player is considered bench personnel, and 1 foul to team count or 3) just a team technical foul that isn't charged to anyone?

Player Tech
Indirect to Coach
One team foul
Start gm with Admin of Free throws
Throw in for offended team

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

... not an administrative T.

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

I think you're correct, but that seems to be their intent with this wording. Perhaps they'll add a definition of "administrative technical foul" to make them offset, or they can tweak the wording and leave it in the case book since there really aren't that many times this situation will come up.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

Technical Foul Summary -- page 70

[asdf]

This is an instant replay of the Team Control / Throw-In / Backcourt or no Backcourt violation cluster from last year.

What the heck is so hard about seeing the difference between the two infractions and understanding why the ruling in the Case Book is the way it is?

You can play "gotcha" with the FED all you want. All it creates is a waste of time in your local meetings.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

This is an instant replay of the Team Control / Throw-In / Backcourt or no Backcourt violation cluster from last year.

What the heck is so hard about seeing the difference between the two infractions and understanding why the ruling in the Case Book is the way it is?

You can play "gotcha" with the FED all you want. All it creates is a waste of time in your local meetings.

To be fair, the Fed invites it.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Adam

To be fair, the Fed invites it.

While they don't put their thoughts and intentions into the proper words from time to time, it's clear in this instance, just like last year, what they are trying to do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

While they don't put their thoughts and intentions into the proper words from time to time, it's clear in this instance, just like last year, what they are trying to do.

I agree with you on this case; but I maintain that their history of poor wording is more than just semantics (see the non-change of the team control rule this year for an example). Sometimes their word choices mean the exact opposite of their stated intent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Technical Foul Summary, page 70

Administrative:
Providing rosters; starters; numbers; changes,
additions, etc.; team not ready to start half, TV
monitor, electronic communication; not
occupying assigned bench; more than five
players; excess time-out; violation after team
warning for delay; all players not returning at
same time after time-out or intermission (10-1)

Nice citation bob jenkins. Why don't they actually define "administrative" in Rule 4 - Definitions? That's where it belongs. Plus, a list of examples really isn't a definition.