Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
No. He's not the only one. But my posting on this topic in a previous thread was so long-winded as to make even MTD despair of ever reaching the end!  |
True. BITS and I had a brief exchange on this point about a month ago. (Perhaps he can locate the thread and post the link.)
We agreed that the two rules do conflict. Of course, this will happen when a new rule is inserted into an existing rule system such as was done with POI. Sometimes not all of the existing language is modified to mesh with the new change. That is simply the case here. The intent of the NFHS committee is clear--employ the POI rule.
MTD, where you are messing up logically is that you are willing to employ 4-36-2a, but not 4-36-2b. There is no way to defend that. You are trying to pick and choose what rules to apply and one cannot officiate that way.
Stated more specifically, in your example in which the FT shooter has been given the ball and has control of it when the double T is called, that would still be a false double foul since the clock hasn't started between the two calls. The fact that the ball became live doesn't matter. As you know FDFs do not have to come in the same dead ball period. It is the clock that matters. Check the definition in 4-19-9. So in this situation why are you not insisting that we enforce the penalties for the FDF in order and go to the AP arrow? I find it strange that you want to use the POI rule (4-36-2a) in this case, but not in the situation presented in the OP (which would warrant using 4-36-2b).
You simply are not correct about this.