Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Bob has nicely suggested using the simultaneous foul rule to allow for all of the Ts to offset. It certainly simplifies the mess and avoids attempting numerous FTs, but is it actually correct? We certainly know there is a sequence to these fouls. Even if the first two or three happen in a short time span, the foul by B3 definitely occurs later and the entering of the court happens after the initial swing and retaliation by two Team B players.
Another issue in this scenario is that none of the technicals can form a double technical foul because of the definition, which requires two opponents to foul each other. Only A1 and B1 commit acts against each other, but one of them is during a live ball, so that nixes those from the double technical category.
My current understanding is that fighting technicals by players in the game cannot offset any by team members who enter the court. The NFHS puts them into two different buckets. It would be great to have a case play that clarifies this though. Or even states the opposite!
So if I were to administer the play as described above:
1. Personal foul by B1
2. Flagrant technical foul by A1.
3. Either an intentional or flagrant technical foul by B2. (Need to see the severity of this contact to decide.)
4. Either an intentional or flagrant technical by B3. (Need to see the severity.)
5. Flagrant technical fouls by A6 & A7 per rule. A7 is deemed to have participated.
Consequences:
1. Three team fouls on each team.
2. Two indirect technicals charged to Team A’s Head Coach (= Loss of coaching box.)
3. A1, A6, and A7 are disqualified. B2 and B3 are DQ’d if their fouls were ajudged to be flagrant, but not if only intentional dead ball contact.
4. Administer all of these penalties in the order of occurrence: any FTs due to B1’s personal foul will be attempted by a sub for DQ’d A1; Team B then attempts 2 FTs for A1’s T, followed by Team A attempting four FTs for the two techs by B2 & B3, and finally Team B shoots four FTs (2 for A6 entering and participating, plus 2 for A7 just entering). Now award a division line throw-in to Team B.
It is not as simple as Bob’s suggestion and that is the problem with the lack of clear information from the NFHS on fights/altercations.
|
I agree to most of what you are saying.
In the video, it appears the officials ruled that B1, B2 and B3 were assessed Flagrant T's. B1 has a personal and Flagrant T. So B1 and A1 Flagrant T's offset. Thus eliminating Team B attempting 2 FTs for A1’s T.
This happened in with 1:12 remaining in OT. Both teams already had 5 Team fouls. So Team fouls are a moot point.
I know Bob wanted all T's to offset. But I believe each team should shoot 4 FT's for the T's.
Player replacing A1 shoots 2 for personal foul
Team A shoots 4 FT's for players fighting
Team B shoots 2 FT's substitutes entering & 2 FT's for substitute fighting.
Team B gets the ball at division line
Coach A sits
It appears the officials took bob's line of thinking. Offset all T's. They lined up and Team A's substitute shot the 2 personal FT's. They forgot to sit Coach A