[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Precisely why Rut is wrong.

Under NFHS rules fouls are administered in the order in which they occur.

The FTs for the technical foul with be attempted first by any member of Team A, then players will be allowed to occupy the lane spaces and the FTs for the shooting foul will be attempted by A1. The game will resume as after any normal FT attempts. The throw-in penalty for the technical foul vanishes. It is superceded by the penalty for the next foul.

I will make this clear with two examples.
1. B3 is charged with a technical foul. The FTs are attempted and the ball is placed at the disposal of A4 for the ensuing throw-in. While A4 is holding the ball B5 fouls A5 by holding him.
The game continues by administering the penalty for B5's foul. Either a throw-in closest to the spot of that foul or bonus FTs for A5. The throw-in which was in progress for the technical foul is halted and then disappears. You never go back to it.

2. A3 begins a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball. A4 is setting a screen for A3. B2 shoves A4 to the ground and then proceeds to foul A3 on the arm while he is releasing the try. Prior to this action Team B had five team fouls.
Both fouls are reported and charged to B2 because the ball was live the entire time. The penalty for the foul against A4 would be a throw-in, but since another foul occurred after that we skip that throw-in and proceed to the administration of the penalty for the foul against A3 in the act of shooting. The teams will line up and A3 with attempt FTs.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to jump in here real quick because Mark, Jr., and I have a baseball game later that afternoon.

I am siding with Nevada on this play. Another example is A1 is going in for what should be an uncontested fast break layup and B-HC drops an F-bomb on the official covering the play. We have an NFHS Casebook Play that states that this a DDB situation, in other words, let A1 go in for his layup and then come back and penalize B-HC. But lets add another piece to this play: B1 rushes down court and in an attempt to block A1's layup attempt, fouls A1 in the Act of Shooting. Which foul occurred first: B-HC's TF or B1's PF? We definitely have a FMF, which should be penalized in the order that they occurred.

MTD, Sr.

This thread has generated quite a bit of discussion. There have been a number of posts since my original post (see above) confirming what NevadaRef and I have already stated. Someone even went to the trouble of looking up the Casebook Play which I mentioned in my post. There have also been several examples given where penalties for a given infraction do not carry over to a new quarter, half, or overtime period. These are examples that led themselves to defending Nevada and my position: Penalize the fouls in the order in which they occurred. It is not rocket science.

MTD, Sr.