Administrative Technicals

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Sure, they may be discovered at different times just like any two random fouls happen at different times. None of that precludes them being discovered at the same time. I never said they were all simultaneous fouls, just that they could be. You said it could never happen. I provided a simple and possible example where it could.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure, they may be discovered at different times just like any two random fouls happen at different times. None of that precludes them being discovered at the same time. I never said they were all simultaneous fouls, just that they could be. You said it could never happen. I provided a simple and possible example where it could.

Well I said if you have a case play that suggests otherwise, I will defer to that point of view. But in the OP, this is clearly two different events and did not happen simultaneously. And I do not know of any situation where you would not treat these as different events. And I have yet to find support that suggests you would not shoot FTs in this or any other situation. Again, find something that suggests otherwise and I will go along with your feeling on this.

Peace

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I said if you have a case play that suggests otherwise, I will defer to that point of view. But in the OP, this is clearly two different events and did not happen simultaneously. And I do not know of any situation where you would not treat these as different events. And I have yet to find support that suggests you would not shoot FTs in this or any other situation. Again, find something that suggests otherwise and I will go along with your feeling on this.

Peace

JRut - what would you do if you called a double-foul on two guys, where neither one was in the book?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

JRut - what would you do if you called a double-foul on two guys, where neither one was in the book?

Didn't they figure out one of them was not in the book first?

Peace

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Didn't they figure out one of them was not in the book first?

Peace

I don't understand. You just answered a question with a question. What would you do?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I don't understand. You just answered a question with a question. What would you do?

I just told you what I would do if you were paying attention. This is not a double foul by definition. It is not a foul against opponents and it is not something that happen at the same time. One was discovered before the other. And if you want to ask a third world situation that will not likely happen, because chances are they are discovered before they get that far. And if they are not discovered until the foul, one of them are discovered first and the other second. I would ask, which one did you realize first, then I give a T to them first and the other T second.

And I looked this up and still do not see any support that suggests you can call a double foul for his kind of situation.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

JRut - what would you do if you called a double-foul on two guys, where neither one was in the book?

Double personal followed by simultaneous T. Resume at POI.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I said if you have a case play that suggests otherwise, I will defer to that point of view.

3.4.3C

Note that it applies when the admin errors are both discovered before the game. It's an EXAMPLE of admin errors offsetting.

It does not apply to the OP -- I think most agree that both should be penalized in this instance.

[Camron Rust]

You said...

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

So, I provide a few basic examples of how "can never happen" (not a ruling on the OP) is false lest anyone actually believe the erroneous statement.

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.

But then you twist it back to the OP again like you so often do.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Will you make up your mind about whether you're talking about the OP or something that can never happen? Or do you enjoy changing the topic back and forth just for kicks?

[JRutledge]

Camron,

I made it very clear that the thing that can never happen is the double foul on an administrative technical foul based off of a book technical. There is no rules support that you have shown me to contradict that statement. I did not say you could never possibly have two different players from two different teams not be in the book. I just do not believe that you can call that a double foul and go to the POI as a way to administer the situation. If that is hard to understand than I guess that is your issue. Maybe that is what they do at the NCAAW level, but not the rules set I am using. I would even have to look up to see if even at the NCAAM level this is the way to handle such a situation. And if you do a lot of things you can prevent all this by having coaches check what they submitted.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Camron,

I made it very clear that the thing that can never happen is the double foul on an administrative technical foul based off of a book technical. There is no rules support that you have shown me to contradict that statement. I did not say you could never possibly have two different players from two different teams not be in the book. I just do not believe that you can call that a double foul and go to the POI as a way to administer the situation. If that is hard to understand than I guess that is your issue. Maybe that is what they do at the NCAAW level, but not the rules set I am using. I would even have to look up to see if even at the NCAAM level this is the way to handle such a situation. And if you do a lot of things you can prevent all this by having coaches check what they submitted.

Peace

What is clear is that you can't read. I said SIMULTANEOUS, not double.

And the proper ruling, when a player from each team is NOT in the book and the scorer tells you that at one time (it doesn't matter which one he happens to state first), is that you have a simultaneous foul situation....which goes to POI. It really isn't that difficult, but for you, I (and all too many others here) have come to expect that everything simple is difficult.


FYI, I don't know where you think I work NCAA-W, not that there is anything wrong with that. I've only worked NCAA-M....and mostly boys HS with a couple girls games a year.

And i don't really know why you reference any specific rule set since you like to make up your own most of the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What is clear is that you can't read. I said SIMULTANEOUS, not double.

I read it, and I do not agree with that opinion. You know, something you seem to have a hard time dealing with, another opinion.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And the proper ruling, when a player from each team is NOT in the book and the scorer tells you that at one time (it doesn't matter which one he happens to state first), is that you have a simultaneous foul situation....which goes to POI. It really isn't that difficult, but for you, I (and all too many others here) have come to expect that everything simple is difficult.

OK, do you have a case play that backs up that opinion? I told you I would be flexible if you could show me a ruling other than what you normally do here, speak from your opinion. Well I cannot go on your opinion because where I live and who I work for have no idea who you are.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

FYI, I don't know where you think I work NCAA-W, not that there is anything wrong with that. I've only worked NCAA-M....and mostly boys HS with a couple girls games a year.

I thought you worked Women's college. And I thought Bob's reference to you was a suggestion that you work that level and would know those rulings. If you don't work Women's college that is no sweat off my back. Believe it or not I really do not pay that close attention to what you do as an official.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And i don't really know why you reference any specific rule set since you like to make up your own most of the time.

If I make up rules as I go along, why do I continue to work games at two different levels? And I am usually the person (in multiple sports) that usually knows these situations because I make it my business to not have rules mistakes. So why the hell do I continue to work if you know so much about what I do as an official? The issue is you have no idea what I do or do not do as an official. And us talking about things here is often has not one thing to do with what we do on the court as you cannot see any of us actually officiate. But I do find it funny that guys like you argue these silly things that never happen in games as if your life depends on it.

Peace