Figured this would generate some discussion. :)


My response to the person who asked me about what should have been done...penalize in the order of occurrence.

That means you shoot the FTs for T, then you shoot the FTs for the shooting foul with the players on the lane and resume after those FTs as in any other shooting foul.

The subsequent personal foul eliminates the possession element of a T. This is not unlike a series of technical fouls that are not double fouls. All the FTs are shot, but possession at the end is determined by the last foul to have occurred. Alternately, this is not unlike a personal foul that occurs during the throwin for a T. The throwin is abandoned and the personal foul is penalized.

There is no need for a case play here, applying the penalties (in their entirety) in the order of occurrence is an NFHS rules fundamental.

But in this situation if you do what many have suggested, you have completely ignored part of the penalty part of the equation. Part of a Penalty of a T is who you give the ball to after a FT. You are not taking away FTs for the shooting foul in any way. You are still giving those FT, but the issue is are the players on the line or not.

Again I still feel this is just not an area covered in the rules that would need clarification by the higher ups. Because anytime you see in Rule 10 about penalties, they say that it involves the ball going to the division line. All you would be doing in this case is give the T and not give any other penalty portion of the foul.

Peace

It's covered. Look at Cameron's example. The throw in is not required to be given every time a T is called. Another example, T as time expires for 1st quarter. shoot the FTs but the throw in does not carry over to 2nd qtr. Fouls are penalized in the order they occur. In this OP the T happened first so those FTs are shot first. Then all players are on the line for the shooting foul. That is penalizing them in the order they occurred.

Frankly, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they said penalize the T last (even if it happened first as in OP) for reasons you've mentioned (Ts are deemed worse) but they havnt said it. The only thing they have said in rules is penalize all fouls in order they occurred. T is a foul. thx

If it is covered, then we have a reference directly speaking to this situation. There are many rules that have holes in them and we talk about on this site. This would not be the first rule that has this issue, nor the last. Cameron's example is also not official or coming from the body that created the rules. I am saying that this clearly is a whole in the rules and no one in the rules does it say to ignore a portion of the penalty in this or any case. And the situations is very unusual as there are other plays that even tell us to wait to call a T until the play has finished. So there are some contradictions here. And I stand by my position because I feel that giving the ball to the FT shooter of the foul last is not what is the purpose and intent of the rules.

The fundamental does not say, "Ignore the part of the penalty because it did not take place first...." The only issue IMO would be which order we shoot the FTs. But again, it is an interesting play and could change my position if I have more than "opinions" from random people on this topic. Right now we are just sharing our personal opinions. Great on some level, but might not be what those in power want or even care about honestly.

Peace

Not for nothing. I also agree with Rut's POV in addition to my earlier statement that was contradictory. In the end a T in HS awards the offended team the ball. There is clear direction on what would happen if another T was issued after the fact, but not so much for a common foul.

Also Nevada's previous example from post 6 is flawed in that the offended team was awarded the throw in and the ball was live. Nowhere is the expectation that they get unlimited attempts to complete the throw in for the T.

I think both applications are correct and I would be shocked if this happened in a sanctioned game and either method was rebuked (by anyone other than a coach of course). Both arguments are valid and I can see either being applicable.

Late to the party, but you have to administer the penalty for each foul in the same order in which the fouls occurred. The penalty for a technical foul is two FTs and throw-in opportunity at the division line. The subsequent shooting foul doesn't erase of supersede the penalty for the technical foul, it just comes next and the rules outline the procedure for resuming play following FTs for a personal foul. That procedure doesn't include returning to the penalty for another foul or awarding possession to either team because of a previous foul. I agree that possession is a big part of the penalty for a technical foul, but with regard to the enforcement of penalties for fouls, no preferential status is given to any type of foul over another in the rules. The only clearly stated guide for this situation is to penalize in the order the fouls occurred.

Nicely said.

And the rules cover this perfectly....order of occurrence. That covers everything. Unless an exception is stated, there is no reason to do otherwise.

The throwin after the T isn't so much part of the penalty but the method of resuming play after the T. However, if there is another penalty to be administered, you don't resume play but move on to that penalty. Just like any other infraction.

Example: The penalty for traveling, OOB, etc. is a throwin for he other team. But, if a foul occurs before that throwin is started, you skip the throwin for the traveling and move onto the foul.

Why would it be any different for two fouls?

The fundamental point of this situation is that technicals are no different than other fouls regarding the order of penalty enforcement. When there is a sequence of infractions (violations or fouls, personal or technical), the last one to occur determines how play is ultimately resumed.

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

Johnny,
I understand your reasoning and the sentiment that the Team should also get the ball. However, the language in the rules says the "fouls are penalized in order they occurred." That is the only language dealing with the situation. It is the order of the fouls that matters under the language of the rules. As I said to Jeff, we will agree to disagree on this one.

msu.

I doubt this will even happen anyway for us to have much of a disagreement in the real world.

If this happens let me know. ;)

Peace

Did you not read my first post? It did happen. That is why I brought it up. The person it happened to consulted me on whether they handled it correctly.

Yes I read your first post, but it did not happen to you and you were describing what happened to them. If it happens to BigCat or anyone else, then maybe I will worry about this situation in that kind of detail. I doubt seriously this is happening very often to anyone else.

Peace

1. Look up the difference between "access" and "assess."
2. You are completely wrong under NFHS rules. The timing of the action determines when an infraction occurs, not when an official elects to penalize it.

SMH. So, it has to happen to a specific set of people before it is a valid play?

It happened in a game with two state tournament level officials with players obviously playing at or above the rim. They asked me for a reason....they were not certain they did it right they respect my rules knowledge.

There is no need for you to refuse to accept the facts unless you just don't want to admin you were wrong..