Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
A false double foul is backed by rule, with the full penalty enforced for each foul. That is not the case for a foul and then a violation, because the violation would normally be ignored...
|
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!! THANK YOU!!!
That's NVRef's question! WHY? Why do you essentially ignore the violation?
If you would just read his post for what's it's worth and stop being so offended every time I reply to one of your messages, then maybe you could participate in the discussion, instead of being so defensive and taking your little potshots at me.
I'm done.
|
You always post with the holier-than-thou attitude and I'm taking potshots?
PLEASE!
I answered the question that was asked, pointing out WHY it is handled differently, and you make it sound like you convinced me of something. I noticed that you still have not put your two cents in, nor have you answered my question about would you count the basket if A1 returned to the floor and then shot the ball.
|
Well, Z, you have made a point that the ball becomes dead on a violation and usually does not on a foul when there is a try in flight. (PC being the exception) I also see your point about the player being fouled in the act of shooting, but then traveling before being able to actually shoot. I know that the try does NOT count if successful due to the travel ending continuous motion. There is a case play on that somewhere. The shooter gets 2FTs and the game resumes from the free throws as normal. So in that case we don't clear the lane either.
But what I am looking for is more than merely a rule, other play examples, or a that's-just-the-way-it-is-done argument, I want the rationale behind the NFHS rule for this difference (if there even is one somewhere which states to ignore the awarding OOB part of the violation penalty in these cases).
I happen to agree with Tony that the dead ball thing doesn't seem to be enough by itself to decide whether the lane is cleared or occupied during the ensuing FTs. Tony's example of the false double foul with the second foul being a PC is a good one to show that a foul can cause the ball to become dead during a try and yet the lane is cleared for the FTs unlike administration after the dead ball caused by a violation.
I still think that the violating team is getting off easy by not losing the ball. The whole thing certainly seems inconsistent to me, but that's probably just the NFHS for ya.
|
It happens when you shoot T's that were not simultaneous, so one team loses the throw in penalty based on when the fouls occurred.
The rationale is the order they occur and that the violation would be ignored if not for the try.
We do have the following about dead ball contact, "Contact, unless intentional or flagrant, should be ignored," so perhaps they consider this situation to be the same.