Administrative Technicals

[Scratch85]

The thread concerning Admin T's made me think of this situation and I didn't want to hijack the other thread. Sorry if it seems redundant.

Middle of the 2nd quarter A1 commits a foul and it is noted that A1 is not in the book. Admin Tech against Team A is issued. B1 shoots the first of the two FT's. The table then notifies the officials that B1 is not in the book. Admin Tech against Team B is issued.

My questions are; 1) Do we always shoot admin T's and administer them in the order they occurred? (no cancelling as in Double T's) 2) Does the above scenario end with a division line throw in by Team A?

[JRutledge]

1. Unless you can find a way that a double T is considered a foul against opponents at approximately the same time for administrative violations, then you cannot have both fouls cancel out as in a definition of a double foul or T of any kind.

2. Yes, Team A should get the ball at the division line. The T on team B was noticed after the T on Team A was being administered.

Peace

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1. Unless you can find a way that a double T is considered a foul against opponents at approximately the same time for administrative violations, then you cannot have both fouls cancel out as in a definition of a double foul or T of any kind.

2. Yes, Team A should get the ball at the division line. The T on team B was noticed after the T on Team A was being administered.

Peace

I completely agree with you but to clarify.

Based on your answer to (1), it would not change any thing in my scenario if the T on Team B was noticed prior to administering the T on Team A. Correct?

[JRutledge]

I do not see how an administrative T can ever be a double foul by definition. So you administer this fouls in the order in which they took place.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see how an administrative T can ever be a double foul by definition. So you administer this fouls in the order in which they took place.

Peace

Hmm. The T is for changing the book. So, whichever name gets changed/added first gets the first T.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see how an administrative T can ever be a double foul by definition. So you administer this fouls in the order in which they took place.

Peace

Not double, but simultaneous....

Neither team provides their rosters/starters by the 10 minute mark?

At some moment in the game, the table tells you that neither A1 nor B1, both in the game, is in the book.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not double, but simultaneous....

Neither team provides their rosters/starters by the 10 minute mark?

At some moment in the game, the table tells you that neither A1 nor B1, both in the game, is in the book.

The first is "offset" in NCAAW. There's a specific case on it. I seem to recall one in FED, but I don't have the books handy today.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not double, but simultaneous....

Neither team provides their rosters/starters by the 10 minute mark?

At some moment in the game, the table tells you that neither A1 nor B1, both in the game, is in the book.

Well then show that is the intention by the rules makers an show a situation that is how this should be adjudicated. Each of these situations could be realistically found out at different times, so I am not sure how you make that a simultaneous foul of some kind when these are only fouls when discovered. We are already about to shoot FTs in one and then we later find out there is a T in another situation. There is clearly a delay and that is not either at the same time against opponents or simultaneous which you are suggesting.

Peace