Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.
If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.
|
For that matter, we have NOTHING in the
rules that allow us to delay the call for the T until after the shot....but we're instructed to do just that.
In the case of a defender committing a violation away from the play in hopes of drawing a whistle to kill the play, we have directives to delay the violation (leaving the court, swinging elbows) and call it after the shot and penalize the infraction at that time (count the basket, award possession). The
rules don't support it in any way, but, again, we're directed to cover it that way.
Also, the arguments about getting 2 FTs and possession being sufficient, if that were a valid argument, should apply to the case of a T if it were actually a valid argument. It's not. In fact, it would be more apropos to the case of a T given that the T allows any shooter. Yet, the NFHS deems 2 shots by any player and possession an inadequate consequence.
The rules and philosophies surrounding game situations are intended to be consistent, even if there are not case plays covering all scenarios.
AFAIK, there is no specific case play covering an intentional foul away from the ball in an obvious scoring opportunity. We do have cases covering intentional fouls at the point of the play and violations (leaving the court, elbows) away from the play. As such we're left with extrapolating between case plays. We either treat it like common fouls away from the ball in absence of an obvious scoring opportunity or we treat it like all the cases covering infractions committed in the presence of an obvious scoring opportunities. This scenario falls between the specific case plays we have. We get to use our minds to decide which of the two options best fits the play.
When an undefended shot is imminent and a foul occurs, intentional or not, I'm simply not going to kill the shot unless escalation is likely. Then, if the foul MUST be called, I'll count the shot (if it goes) and then deal with the foul. I'm not talking about the play still being in the backcourt and waiting several seconds for the play to develop....you can't wait that long....but rules makers have made it clear in several situations that it is not the intent to allow the defense to take away an obvious scoring opportunity by committing an infraction away from the ball. In several rulings, they have declared that the infraction should be penalized AFTER the shot. I'm going to follow that established line of thinking in this case. In fact, the intentional foul away from the ball is more egregious than an intentional foul at the shot and deserves a greater penalty than an intentional foul at the point of the ball.
It is not my philosophy...it is the NFHS philosophy.