Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Not precisely right, but close enough as the administration is correct.
Strictly speaking in this case the POI is the awarding of the first of the two FTs that are due to A1's substitute because of the personal foul by B1.
Since a team is entitled to a FT, per 4-36-2b the game is picked up from there and then the rest of the fouls are penalized in order. As the final foul to be penalized is the intentional technical foul (for the dead ball contact) by B1, Team A will be awarded a throw-in at the division line following those FTs.
|
The problem I see with this is order of enforcement. 8-7 tells us, without exception, that "Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred."
So the administration of the fighting T's does not occur until after that for the personal foul and the first technical. There are rules that tell us we must replace the DQ'd players before proceeding with the first free throw. But that does not constitute administering the penalty for the double T.
4-36-2b is the proper POI option for this situation.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
But when considered in concert with 8-7, that leaves the concluding phrase of 4-36-2b as the simplest possibility. At this point the only activity remaining is the throw-in due to the first technical, and team A "is entitled to such."
I think that makes more sense that saying that the POI
was (emphasis on the past-tenseness of this argument) a few free throws ago. I can think of no other situation in which we would deem the POI to be a time that occurred previously in the game.
In the end, you are right that the end result is the same.
I've got to run and can't immediately think of any other cases that would be useful in thinking about this. If you've got one, I'd like to hear it.