Let's not kid ourselves, though.

I've been to so many camps where the clinicians say, "It's just another foul," blah, blah, blah.

Let's get this out of the way: They're full of crap. They're not just like any other foul. No other foul is called because of the behavior of someone. Someone who we already tolerate asking questions, disagreeing, etc. There's emotion usually involved -- instead of denying it, we should acknowledge it as a fact and work however we can to deal with it.

The best officials I've worked with can lose their place in the seconds after issuing a direct technical foul to a head coach -- going to the wrong end to administer free throws, heading to the wrong spot, putting themselves in a position to take more grief, etc. This is the moment where the partners are crucial -- get the official out of there, take a second to let the official gain his bearings, figure out the next steps.

This is really very helpful. My association has recommended that whenever we call a T, find the nearest partner and discuss what happened and how you're going to administer it before you go report anything - for the exact reasons Rich noted. I had never done this prior to joining this association, and now that it's a normal practice, it makes everything go so much smoother when a T is called. It gives you a moment to get your head together, make sure you're shooting on the correct end of the court, and gives you an extra moment to collect yourself before you go over to the table where you're likely to get an earful from a coach.

When you decline... I would inform him that a large part of your reason for declining is the lack of site admin. Don't EVER work games without some sort of neutral(ish) site admin.

+1
Excellent points Rich.

And there are so many more things to deal with with after whistling T in basketball as opposed to an EJ on the diamond.

Odog- loved the story. Those AAU Wild West type battles are great training for the more civilized world. You really do become judge, jury, and executioner.

Would this be considered a "Double Technical"? where 4 shots would be awarded? or simply a technical foul and 2 shots? I guess my question is that you don't need 2 direct techs in this case since physical contact occured?

First one should have been flagrant.

It wouldn't be a double technical... it would just be a flagrant technical. Ejection, 2 shots.

A double technical would only occur if two T-worthy actions occur with some time interval between them... the interval doesn't have to be very long, but it has to be there. For example:

Coach: "You've gotta be f-cking kidding me!"
Official: "Tweet. Technical foul."
Coach: "You're a horsesh-t official!"
Official: "Tweet. Technical foul."

Two separate actions, two separate Ts.

GREAT ANSWER..Makes it very clear..Thanks

I treated it as a ??false multiple technical foul??. One for the poke and second for tossing the ball away. We did shoot four TFTs. However, I have learned in this situation it should have been flagrant for the first one and not even dealt with the rest of it.

Just to be clear...what you describe is not a double technical. It is two technicals on that coach. A double T would be something that happens between opponents.

Ah yes, quite right.

Double (Technical) foul = (Technical) fouls committed by opponents against each other at approximately the same time.

Yep, and that makes a big difference. Two T's and you're shooting four FT's (with between 1 and 4 shooters :) ).

A double T and you're shooting zero FT's and resuming at the POI.

I know that you know this, just adding it for general edification. (Maybe Adam knows the general?)