The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 569
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?
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:37pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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?
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:47pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:00pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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
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.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:18pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 05:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.

Last edited by Camron Rust; Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 07:04pm.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:16pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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?
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:54pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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?
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:07am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 282
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).
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Administrative T Rich Basketball 9 Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:37pm
Administrative T or not? Zoochy Basketball 14 Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:27pm
Administrative "T" rainmaker Basketball 15 Tue Dec 07, 2004 01:11pm
Unsporting or Administrative "T" Smoothieking Basketball 12 Tue Jan 06, 2004 04:18pm
administrative technical jr Basketball 7 Mon Dec 15, 2003 03:26pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1