Administrative Technicals

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

I answered the question I thought was relevant to this discussion and the OP.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

In our area...sometimes #1 is not reliable in the second game of a JV/V doubleheader where you have a player that plays on both teams and comes onto the court late during the warmup or into the first quarter.