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).

Huh? Not only did I answer your question, but you should have figured out that by the question I asked you. One of the times a player is not in the book was discovered first. I would think that is not hard to understand. But you know what they say when you assume? Oh well. :rolleyes:

Peace

You do know what a double foul is, right? Let's say for example, A3 and B3 early in the game are pulling and grabbing each other, and you blow the whistle, and issue a foul to each. The table tells you that neither are in the book. What would you do? If anyone else reading this knows what he would do because it's obvious if you've been paying attention - then please tell me. Thanks.

You are right I have no idea what a double foul is. Yep, no idea.

I WOULD PENALIZE THE T OF THE TEAM THAT WAS DISCOVERED FIRST and then PENALIZE THE SECOND DISCOVERY SECOND (You know the order in which they took place, THEN GIVE THE BALL AT HALF COURT TO THE SECOND TEAM OFFENDED. THAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF INTERRUPTION AFTER THE DOUBLE FOUL!!!!

Does that answer your question?

Peace

First of all, this is a significant part of what we do here, we debate things that will never happen...............just in case they do.

Even if this did happen, one would probably be discovered slightly before the other:

BUZZ A1 is not in the book. Okay, here's what we'll do.........

BUZZ B1 is not in the book, either. Okay, you know what? Write both of them in and let's play on.


If this is not a 2-3, what is?

Yes. Was that so hard? If two guys were simultaneously pulling and grabbing each other, such that you call a double foul, I'm glad to hear you are always able to tell who grabbed and pulled first.

I thought it was self explanatory if you know that I feel you cannot have a double foul on these situation (and there is no support anyone can show me or I can find). Maybe you do not understand the rules or definitions that apply. If it is not a double foul, then you administer Ts in the order of their occurrence. That is pretty basic stuff man.

BTW, I was taught to call the first foul, not to get in a habit of calling double fouls on players. It has been said at camps to be a cop out. Call the first foul and the second foul does not happen. You know the similar reason you see hardly anyone advocate calling a multiple foul as one took place first.

Peace

I am fully aware of the basic stuff and administering T's in order of occurrence. I never mentioned that, never asked a question about that, not sure why you keep bringing it up. I'm talking about double "personal" fouls.

I agree the double foul can sometimes be a cop out, but sometimes an official (not you) missed the first contact. And, although you've never called one, and never will, I've seen other officials call them. I was wondering what should happen if neither of the offenders were in the book in this situation. I mistakenly thought you may have called one of those, or in the future call one and, wanted to know how you'd handle it.

Because, in that case, it seems whichever team and number happens to be given to the table last, gets screwed. And, that doesn't seem fair.

In my opinion, this sounds like the logical thing to do.

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. :rolleyes:

If you miss the first contact, why not just call the "second" contact first? And I have called a double foul, but was taught not to call them some time ago. I was actually at a camp before John Adams was the Supervisor for the NCAA to not call double fouls. He would say, "If you miss the first contact, miss the second contact and call the third contact." I also teach officials in camps not to call double fouls and get the first contact and call that instead of a double foul. Usually the second contact is a result of us not calling what first happen. And usually since you see a lot of double fouls called on post play, the NCAA for example usually illustrates how the first contact should be called and you would not have a second foul.

Life is not fair and the rules are not always "fair." And like JAR stated this is very rare when you consider the chances are the minute a player comes into the game, it would be discovered that player was not in the book by someone (opponents often keep their own book as well). I doubt seriously that someone would not be screaming that someone was not in the book. But if it falls through the cracks, then I would do what I said before. If the rules makers want to make this situation easier, they can change the rule or give and interpretation to suggest exactly how they want this to be administered. Since they have not done that at this time and I doubt that will happen soon, it will be up to the officials that are on the game in question.

Peace

[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. :rolleyes:

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)." :rolleyes:

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.

You said...

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.

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

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?

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

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. ;)

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

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.

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

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.

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. ;)

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. ;)

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.

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

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.

Double personal followed by simultaneous T. Resume at POI.

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. :)

Basically. ;)

Peace

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.

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.

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

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.

No Surprises ...
 

just another ref: Nice post (above).

That's also one reason why I still work Catholic middle school games. These little gym rats do things that you would never see in a high school varsity game, so, on the very rare occasion that the same thing does happen in a high school varsity game, we know how to handle it properly.

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.

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.

You are still not showing rules support for this position.

Peace

Good lord JRut. Are you seriously going to shoot TFT on both ends because of a double foul and both players aren't in the book! And because the scorekeeper realizes that neither players are in the book. You decide to do 2 TF not at the same time. Whack A! Whack B! A because we noticed that you weren't in the book first B will shoot then A is going to shoot and then we are going to give the ball at the division line to B which isn't at all a disadvantage to you:rolleyes: because we saw your error first. And this definitely did not happen at approximately the same time:rolleyes:. So let's just hold up the game and shoot some FTs and give possession to B, even though you, A, had the ball before the double foul. Nope not an unfair disadvantage at all, A. :rolleyes: Good hell, double foul, double team tech, POI. Play ball.:mad: Close the thread.

I think JRut's still stuck on the OP, not the double personal foul, which resulted in simultaneous T's, which, by rule, no free throws, POI.

They have, you disagree. We get it.

This horse is dead.