Technical fouls to start the game

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NFHS has always been order of occurrence, so that's your answer.
The problem is that someone from the NFHS wrote a case play a couple of years ago which conflicts with the text of the rules and 6.4.1 Sit A. That case play is 3.4.3 Situation C and it states to treat any technical fouls by opposing teams prior to the start of the game as offsetting double fouls.
There is no way to resolve these conflicting rulings. Therefore, I will be going with the text of the actual rule and enforcing the penalties in the order in which they occur if such ever happens to me.

3.4.3 deals with TEAM technical fouls. that is the difference in the plays. the only team technical fouls occuring before game listed in first part of rule 10. case play cites 10-1-2. in the 3.4.3 play both teams are changing numbers in book. TEAM technicals. Player and coaches charged in 6.4.1. pregame dunk and an illegal uniform. i assume since team techs arent deemed serious enough to charge a player or a coach they want them to be a wash before game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

3.4.3 deals with TEAM technical fouls. that is the difference in the plays. the only team technical fouls occuring before game listed in first part of rule 10. case play cites 10-1-2. in the 3.4.3 play both teams are changing numbers in book. TEAM technicals. Player and coaches charged in 6.4.1. pregame dunk and an illegal uniform. i assume since team techs arent deemed serious enough to charge a player or a coach they want them to be a wash before game.

The fact that the TFs are charged to the Team and not to a Player is not germane to the discussion. As far as the NFHS is concerned a foul is a foul is a foul. Therefore the CB Play3.4.3 Sit. C RULING is not correct by rule.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The fact that the TFs are charged to the Team and not to a Player is not germane to the discussion. As far as the NFHS is concerned a foul is a foul is a foul. Therefore the CB Play3.4.3 Sit. C RULING is not correct by rule.

MTD, Sr.

that is a clear difference in the plays. it is certainly germane to the discussion. it may not matter in the end but im not ready to write it off yet. do you have the "order of occurrence" cites handy? i know one of them says personal fouls and technical fouls penalized in order of occurrence. i cant remember the number. i know in rule 4 it defines "foul" and lists various types, including technical. But "team technical" isnt listed there. it is only defined in rule 10.

i'd like to see more before saying 3.4.3 C is flat out wrong. if you have time. thx

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The problem is that someone from the NFHS wrote a case play a couple of years ago which conflicts with the text of the rules and 6.4.1 Sit A. That case play is 3.4.3 Situation C and it states to treat any technical fouls by opposing teams prior to the start of the game as offsetting double fouls.

I agree with the poor wording, but would apply it only to the administrative-type technical fouls.

[Robert E. Harrison]

They don't mention the coach no longer is entitled to the box after a player by his team dunks but the book T does not cost the coach the box.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

that is a clear difference in the plays. it is certainly germane to the discussion. it may not matter in the end but im not ready to write it off yet. do you have the "order of occurrence" cites handy? i know one of them says personal fouls and technical fouls penalized in order of occurrence. i cant remember the number. i know in rule 4 it defines "foul" and lists various types, including technical. But "team technical" isnt listed there. it is only defined in rule 10.

i'd like to see more before saying 3.4.3 C is flat out wrong. if you have time. thx

Big Cat:

Let us look at the following play: Both Team A and Team B dress ten players but only list eight names on their respective Team Rosters at the Ten Minute Mark. Team B has control of the Ball early in the fourth quarter. B1 passes the ball toward B2; the pass is not very accurate and in a failed attempt to keep the Ball from going Out-of-Bounds, B2 is injured and cannot continue to Play. HC-B decides to replace B2 with B9 who is not listed in the Scorebook. Team B is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. After B9 has entered the game but before any player from Team A attempts the first FT from Team B's TF, Team A requests and is granted a TO. HC-A sends A10 to the Scorer to report into the game before the TO Warning Buzzer to attempt the FTs. Team A is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. The result is that this is a FDF and Team A will attempt its FTs because of Team B's TF and then Team B will attempt its FTs because of Team A's TF; Team B will then be awarded a throw-in at the division line opposite the S/T Table.

The foul sequence in the play in the previous paragraph occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period. The foul sequence in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period.

The RULING in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C is defended in the COMMENT of the CB Play which states: "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time”." Based upon the Rules it is a complete fallacy that the two TFs are DTFs. No where in the Rules will anyone find such support for the DTF conclusion stated in the COMMENT.

What is more puzzling is that CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C references CB Play 6.4.1. Sit. A, which specifically states that the foul sequence is a FDF.

I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants TFs committed by each team during the Pre-Game Dead Ball Period to offset, one-for-one, but the Rules Committee must first change the Rules. The Rules Committee cannot just write a RULING that cannot be supported by the Rules and wish (upon a star) for it to be correct. The RULING and COMMENT in CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C is sheer nonsense; it is not supported by Rule and none of the Rules listed support the RULLING and COMMENT.

"Approximately at the same time" means just that, not that the Fouls occured during the same Stop Clock Dead Ball Period.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

They don't mention the coach no longer is entitled to the box after a player by his team dunks but the book T does not cost the coach the box.

A player who dunks the ball during the Pre-game Stopped Clock Period is considered Bench Personnel and therefore his HC is most certainly get charged with an IDTF and lose his Coaching Box for the game.

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Big Cat:

Let us look at the following play: Both Team A and Team B dress ten players but only list eight names on their respective Team Rosters at the Ten Minute Mark. Team B has control of the Ball early in the fourth quarter. B1 passes the ball toward B2; the pass is not very accurate and in a failed attempt to keep the Ball from going Out-of-Bounds, B2 is injured and cannot continue to Play. HC-B decides to replace B2 with B9 who is not listed in the Scorebook. Team B is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. After B9 has entered the game but before any player from Team A attempts the first FT from Team B's TF, Team A requests and is granted a TO. HC-A sends A10 to the Scorer to report into the game before the TO Warning Buzzer to attempt the FTs. Team A is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. The result is that this is a FDF and Team A will attempt its FTs because of Team B's TF and then Team B will attempt its FTs because of Team A's TF; Team B will then be awarded a throw-in at the division line opposite the S/T Table.

The foul sequence in the play in the previous paragraph occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period. The foul sequence in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period.

The RULING in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C is defended in the COMMENT of the CB Play which states: "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time”." Based upon the Rules it is a complete fallacy that the two TFs are DTFs. No where in the Rules will anyone find such support for the DTF conclusion stated in the COMMENT.

What is more puzzling is that CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C references CB Play 6.4.1. Sit. A, which specifically states that the foul sequence is a FDF.

I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants TFs committed by each team during the Pre-Game Dead Ball Period to offset, one-for-one, but the Rules Committee must first change the Rules. The Rules Committee cannot just write a RULING that cannot be supported by the Rules and wish (upon a star) for it to be correct. The RULING and COMMENT in CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C is sheer nonsense; it is not supported by Rule and none of the Rules listed support the RULLING and COMMENT.

"Approximately at the same time" means just that, not that the Fouls occured during the same Stop Clock Dead Ball Period.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, my thoughts below
I agree with you and many others that it would be best if the NFHS would have everything that affects playing of game in the rules, in order, concise etc. I think Billy mentioned the other day the person who becomes an official this year will have no idea about the elbow rule etc. The rules, case book, points of emphasis etc could be reviewed every few years and codified in one place.

However, the NFHS is, as you know, the governing body. It is in charge of the rules and the case book. it has declared in the case book that it, the Case Book, has been "designated an official supplement to the rules....it is approved and official." Again, id like to see things laid out in rule book but the NFHS, imo, certainly has the authority to expand or even create rules via the case book. not unlike a lot of law in society. much of it comes through case decisions. some of it through statutes..(note-state associations can modify rules etc if they choose)

In 3.4.3C NFHS is taking the fact situation presented and telling us what they want. there is no doubt that they are taking the phrase "approximately the same time" in 4-19-8b and expanding its natural meaning under certain circumstances before the game starts. if each team commits a 10-1-2 team technical, before the game starts, they are deemed to occur at approximately the same time---even if one happens at 9 minute mark and other at 2 minute mark. obviously, this goes against every notion we have about what "approximately the same time" means, and they lose credibility by saying it this way...but it is their rules and case book so if they want to define that phrase, that way, i think they can do it. (its in and has been in case book so they obviously have...) It's a fiction created to reach a certain result they want.

They would be much better off being more direct and saying, in the rules, something like 10-1-2 team technicals committed prior to start of game offset...

Finally, there is a separate reference to 6.4.1 Sit A. it says "See" that play. i think they just want you to look at that play and see the differences in the two plays.
Again, it would certainly be best to have everything codified. things could be made much clearer. it shouldnt be this hard to figure out...thx

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Quoting Liza Minelli’s late first husband, Peter Allen: EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN! Please read the last paragraph of me Comment #25 (on Page 2) in the thread: https://forum.officiating.com/basket...changes-2.html.

When the “Dunking a Dead Ball Rule” was amended by the NBC for the 1971-72 school year, the TF was not charged to the “Dunker” but was charged as an Administrative Technical Foul. I am not going to climb into the my attic to go through file boxes to see when the TF was changed from and Administrative TF to a TF charged directly to the Dunker which made for an interesting discussion during last week of December 2014 in the following thread from the last week of December 2014 (titled: Technical fouls to start the game), paying close attention to NevadaRef’s Comment #11 and my Comment #15 (both on Page 1): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tart-game.html due to the addition in the 2013-14 NFHS Basketball Casebook of CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C and its RULING which seemed to contradict the RULING of already existing CB Play 6.4.1 Sit. A.

None-the-less, we can see from the new Rules Changes for 2024-25 (shown below) that the NFHS Rules, in one aspect, have reverted to the 1971-72 amendment.

10-1-1 PENALTY, 10-1-2 PENALTY, 10-2-7 PENALTY (NEW), 10-5-1 PENALTY(NEW): Establishes that all administrative, team and bench technical fouls that occur during pregame offset – no free throws are awarded – and the game will start with a jump ball and the head coach does not lose the privilege of the coaching box.
Rationale: Clarifies that an equal number of technical fouls committed by both teams during pregame offset and establishes how the game will start after offsetting technical fouls.

10-2-7 (NEW), 10-5-1i: Changes the penalty for dunking or attempting to dunk or stuff a dead ball from a bench technical to a team technical. Rationale: Continues to penalize the offending team with a team technical foul (free-throws, offended team the ball to start the period, a foul added to the team count), but no longer requires the coach to lose the coaching box to start the game and no personal foul is awarded.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

None-the-less, we can see from the new Rules Changes for 2024-25 that the NFHS Rules, in one aspect, have reverted to the 1971-72 amendment.

[BillyMac]

[Raymond]

Or just call over the closest player or AC tell them to stay off the rim.

Blowing the whistle is unnecessary attention.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk