Quote:
Originally posted by JeffTheRef
4. Using the principle that fouls are administered in the order in which they occur, the free throws that were not properly awarded were shot first, with the lane cleared. Next, the bonus free throws (in this case, 1-and-1) were shot with the lane positions filled, the point of interruption. And play resumed from there.
There was nashing of teeth over the matter of whether or not the full penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul had been fulfilled. Team As coach claimed the lane should have been cleared during the shooting of the bonus free throws and his team given the ball after as part of the flagrant intentional foul penalty. Nice try, coach!
But in fact, his team HAD gotten the ball after the flagrant intentional personal foul, and had derived an irrefutable benefit from it - the subsequent foul against Team B. It made less sense to the officials to give Team A a benefit in excess of the stipulated penalty than to force them to bear the burden of having the parts of the penalty awarded out of their natural order. This last matter was, in fact, an uncorrectable part of the correctable error, and appears not to be directly addressed in the rules.
Yuh think?
|
This is interesting. I only have the NCAA rules, but I think the correctable error (c.e.) stuff is the same. Here's the relevant portion of 2-10:
Quote:
|
Art. 4. When an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of interruption to correct the error, unless the correction involves awarding merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made. In that case, play shall resume as after any normal free throw.
|
In this situation, we are awarding merited free throws and there has been no change of team possession, so it seems as though play would resume "as after any normal free throw." With the way the rule is written, one could even argue that the 1-and-1 free throws should be skipped and that you should immediately shoot the other free throws and continue from there! (Disclaimer: I wouldn't actually do this. :-) ) So there are two questions that I see, one of which I think I know the right answer to, and one that I have no idea on:
1) If there is a c.e. awarding of merited free throws on an intentional foul, is possession of the ball part of the correction? Answer: Yes (in my opinion)---this is the way that play would have resumed as "normal," so the c.e. rule supports that.
2) If there is a correctable awarding of merited free throws for A, and the next dead ball is caused by a foul by B after no change of team possession, and A deserves free throws from this foul, what order do we do things? The general principle of "shoot the fouls in the order in which they occur" suggests we do the ones from the c.e. first, but the text of the c.e. rules suggests that we should continue play after the c.e. free throws. This make a huge difference in the current case (where possession comes as part of the penalty of one foul but not the other). Even if both fouls were common, the order in which we shoot them matters.
Incidentally, if we treat these two fouls as we would a false double, then it wouldn't matter what order we shot them in---possession by A at the end would be part of the deal.
I'd love to hear a more authoritative ruling about this situation!