Administrative Technicals

[Coach Bill]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;914679]OK, but isn't this topic about Administrative Technicals? If you want to start a topic about double fouls, then you might want to make that clearer.

You mean like when i wrote this about 5 posts ago:

"I'm talking about what you would do if you called a double-foul on two guys that neither happened to be in the book (i.e., a situation dif from OP)."

And, no, I don't want to start a topic on double fouls. It was relevant to the thread because guys were coming up with scenarios where Administrative T's were simultaneous. And, I thought this qualified. Double foul on two separate offenders both aren't in the book. Which I think, is an Admin. T on both teams at the same time. I know, rare. I know probably never happen. But, just in case, was wondering what do you do? I like JAR's answer - put em in, and play on. Anything else, seems like someone is gaining an advantage not intended by the rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

"I'm talking about what you would do if you called a double-foul on two guys that neither happened to be in the book (i.e., a situation dif from OP)."

I guess I assumed that you were talking about the topic related to Administrative Ts and it appears I was not alone in that assumption as you were given an answer by someone else related to your question and an Administrative T.

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

And, no, I don't want to start a topic on double fouls. It was relevant to the thread because guys were coming up with scenarios where Administrative T's were simultaneous. And, I thought this qualified. Double foul on two separate offenders both aren't in the book. Which I think, is an Admin. T on both teams at the same time. I know, rare. I know probably never happen. But, just in case, was wondering what do you do? I like JAR's answer - put em in, and play on. Anything else, seems like someone is gaining an advantage not intended by the rules.

I did not see many guys coming up with different scenarios. And only one person talked about them being simultaneous.

Since this seems to be hard for you, here is the definition of a double foul in Rule 4-19-8a: "A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commits personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time."

A blarge is a double foul (can be avoided) and some might consider a situation with a fight as a double foul.

And you can like JAR's position, but that does not make it right or the way the rule should be handled. If a player is not in the book, it is a technical foul. And I know if I was called to the carpet, I would not want to use that usage of 2-3 to apply here. If you put the players in the game and not give a T, you are giving someone an advantage as well or you certainly might have a coach that feels they are disadvantaged. Again that is just an opinion, but one I am comfortable with.

Peace

[just another ref]

I think everyone agrees that double foul would not apply here. But rather look at the definition of simultaneous foul. It contains the word approximately. Let's look at a couple of things that actually might happen. Both teams fail to submit their rosters on time, or both leave a player off or change a starter for some reason. As far as I'm concerned, the whole 10 minutes before the start of the game would qualify as "approximately the same time."

Play on.

Just reread the OP. That is also "approximately the same time" in my book.

[SuperXYZ]

play on sounds good. no clear cut on that ruling. but if im not mistaking the players have to check in at the table before coming in to the game and should be found out there but if not, the chances of two players getting into the game to be in the double foul situation then you need a new book keeper. lol

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I assumed that you were talking about the topic related to Administrative Ts and it appears I was not alone in that assumption as you were given an answer by someone else related to your question and an Administrative T.

No - actually, you were alone. JAR understood the question and answered it. He knew when I said double foul I was talking about Rule 4-19-8a. You know the one where it has the definition of what a double foul is?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Since this seems to be hard for you, here is the definition of a double foul in Rule 4-19-8a: "A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commits personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time."

Doesn't seem hard to me at all. It's exactly what I'm talking about and everyone (JAR, Camron, Bob) understood except you. It seems hard to you. because it was a very simple question: "double foul, both players discovered at that time not to be in the book. What's the call?" Sounds like Bob has the rulebook answer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

No - actually, you were alone. JAR understood the question and answered it. He knew when I said double foul I was talking about Rule 4-19-8a. You know the one where it has the definition of what a double foul is?




Doesn't seem hard to me at all. It's exactly what I'm talking about and everyone (JAR, Camron, Bob) understood except you. It seems hard to you. because it was a very simple question: "double foul, both players discovered at that time not to be in the book. What's the call?" Sounds like Bob has the rulebook answer.

Don't take it personally.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Don't take it personally.

Basically.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

No - actually, you were alone. JAR understood the question and answered it. He knew when I said double foul I was talking about Rule 4-19-8a. You know the one where it has the definition of what a double foul is?




Doesn't seem hard to me at all. It's exactly what I'm talking about and everyone (JAR, Camron, Bob) understood except you. It seems hard to you. because it was a very simple question: "double foul, both players discovered at that time not to be in the book. What's the call?" Sounds like Bob has the rulebook answer.

I will say it to you this way. If that happens, a lot of people dropped the ball. For one if not one, but two players came into the game and we go several minutes without knowing a player's numbers or information is not listed, we have bigger issues. Then those two players happened to commit a double foul, then we have figure out what to do? I am sorry, but that is unlikely where I live for a lot of reasons. For one it is common that both teams keep track of their own books. So someone would be screaming that we have to give a T for one or the other. There would have to be a huge breakdown for this to even happen. But I guess some people on this site have to worry about things. Whatever happen with calling basic fouls and violations? There are officials and coaches cannot understand that fact, but worry about these unusual situations that if they happen will be a first.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will say it to you this way. If that happens, a lot of people dropped the ball. For one if not one, but two players came into the game and we go several minutes without knowing a player's numbers or information is not listed, we have bigger issues. Then those two players happened to commit a double foul, then we have figure out what to do? I am sorry, but that is unlikely where I live for a lot of reasons. For one it is common that both teams keep track of their own books. So someone would be screaming that we have to give a T for one or the other. There would have to be a huge breakdown for this to even happen. But I guess some people on this site have to worry about things. Whatever happen with calling basic fouls and violations? There are officials and coaches cannot understand that fact, but worry about these unusual situations that if they happen will be a first.

Peace

The likelihood is not in question here; the proper ruling is. Frankly, it would be easy for me. No shots, POI. I'm not going to fuss over timing and ask, "Ok, but which one was discovered first?"

They're changing the book at the same time (which is what the T is for), the techs will offset.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

The likelihood is not in question here; the proper ruling is. Frankly, it would be easy for me. No shots, POI. I'm not going to fuss over timing and ask, "Ok, but which one was discovered first?"

They're changing the book at the same time (which is what the T is for), the techs will offset.

I think the likelihood is in question. At least it would be for me, because I would rather deal with situations that are common and likely. And so much can be done to even prevent this from being an issue as I have and do often go to each coach and ask them to verify the information. And if there are fewer kids in the book ask the coach to explain why so that we do not have an issue later.

And not everyone has been in unison on this issue has some have said to ignore the foul all together and move on. I just think these kinds of discussions get away from basic stuff that a lot of officials cannot get right, but we worry about once in a career situations.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the likelihood is in question. At least it would be for me, because I would rather deal with situations that are common and likely. And so much can be done to even prevent this from being an issue as I have and do often go to each coach and ask them to verify the information. And if there are fewer kids in the book ask the coach to explain why so that we do not have an issue later.

And not everyone has been in unison on this issue has some have said to ignore the foul all together and move on. I just think these kinds of discussions get away from basic stuff that a lot of officials cannot get right, but we worry about once in a career situations.

Peace

1. I agree, this could have been prevented by counting the players in the book and on the court (most likely).
2. I agree, it's likelihood is low (we all agree, thus it's not really in question).
3. If you would rather deal with other situations, just bow out of this discussion. Your involvement is welcome, but not required.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

The likelihood is not in question here; the proper ruling is. Frankly, it would be easy for me. No shots, POI. I'm not going to fuss over timing and ask, "Ok, but which one was discovered first?"

They're changing the book at the same time (which is what the T is for), the techs will offset.

Wouldn't each team get to shoot their technical free throws, then go yo POI.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Wouldn't each team get to shoot their technical free throws, then go yo POI.

No - free throws are not awarded on simultaneous technical fouls where the penalties offset.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will say it to you this way. If that happens, a lot of people dropped the ball. For one if not one, but two players came into the game and we go several minutes without knowing a player's numbers or information is not listed, we have bigger issues. Then those two players happened to commit a double foul, then we have figure out what to do? I am sorry, but that is unlikely where I live for a lot of reasons. For one it is common that both teams keep track of their own books. So someone would be screaming that we have to give a T for one or the other. There would have to be a huge breakdown for this to even happen. But I guess some people on this site have to worry about things. Whatever happen with calling basic fouls and violations? There are officials and coaches cannot understand that fact, but worry about these unusual situations that if they happen will be a first.

Peace

In a perfect world, officials would be great at everything. However, that is rarely the case. Instead, officials are usually good at most things and great at a couple and maybe even weak in 1-2 areas. Fortunately, most officials I know are honest enough to realize and be willing to admit where their weaknesses are.

As far as this topic goes, some on this site actually understand the underlying rules and can get situations right should less common things happen in addition to basic fouls and violations because such situations do really happen.

Some people, however, don't have that ability and must wing it when something more rules related happens. Sometimes officials can get away with that but they may occasionally get called on it. The honest ones may be decisive with making a ruling based on their feel and can be great officials in general dong so but they're also willing to admit they're winging it when they're not certain....and that's OK. Others, however, will demand that they were right by either twisting everything they can to avoid admitting they didn't really know what to do or by trying to attack anyone who calls them on it.

I know who I am and I'm OK with it. I may nitpick rules in the context of informal discussions. It is an intellectual pursuit...something some officials are not capable of undertaking. And that is OK. However, I don't work games looking to call every little think I can find that is in the book. Discussions of what-if on the forum serve to expose and explore what the basic rules really mean even if it is done by exploring the nooks and crannies with a microscope. Whatever happens in my games, I'm going to KNOW what can be done, what could be done, and what should be done. And I'll KNOW it is correct by rule too.