Administrative Technicals
 

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?

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?

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. :D

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

That's why i didn't understand. No - 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).