Penalty Administration????

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

[OKREF]

Well, if this ever happens to me in a game, I know I have the rule book and I can quote it to any coach who questions the way I would penalize. The rule book says to penalize in the order of occurrence. It doesn't say, anywhere that I can find, to shoot the technical foul second. In this situation. This play is different because we have a foul involving a shooter.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 8-6-2

If there is a multiple throw and both a single personal and single technical foul are involved, the tries shall be attempted in the order in which the related fouls occurred, and if the last try is for a single technical foul, or intentional or flagrant personal foul, the ball shall be put in play by a throw-in.

This doesn't really solve the argument directly. But, I find it curious that they specify how play should resume if the last foul is the technical, but they do not specify how to resume if the last foul is not the technical. That leaves me to conclude that you line them up for the PF and play on. Otherwise, they would just say that play is resumed by a throw-in regardless of the order of the fouls.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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..

Wow, we are really sensitive about this I see.

My point man is this is not likely to happen very often to any of us if ever. So great story, but I doubt that many of us will ever have such events happen to them personally. I know I have never heard or had such a situation happen where this was even a question of how or when you penalize a shooting foul to a T. And I was talking to BigCat as well that was suggesting if it happens to him, then we can worry about what we disagree with at that point. It was actually a joke. I will also suggest that this will probably not happen to you either in this context. And one of the reasons it is not in any case play or in the case book is because this rarely if ever happens to anyone where there needs to be a clarification. I have seen a lot of basketball from regular season, post season, summer basketball, AAU Basketball and never seen such a situation where a regular foul and technical foul took place in such a way where we had to even question how to apply them. When it happens to you personally, let me know.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Wow, we are really sensitive about this I see.

My point man is this is not likely to happen very often to any of us if ever. So great story, but I doubt that many of us will ever have such events happen to them personally. I know I have never heard or had such a situation happen where this was even a question of how or when you penalize a shooting foul to a T. And I was talking to BigCat as well that was suggesting if it happens to him, then we can worry about what we disagree with at that point. It was actually a joke. I will also suggest that this will probably not happen to you either in this context. And one of the reasons it is not in any case play or in the case book is because this rarely if ever happens to anyone where there needs to be a clarification. I have seen a lot of basketball from regular season, post season, summer basketball, AAU Basketball and never seen such a situation where a regular foul and technical foul took place in such a way where we had to even question how to apply them. When it happens to you personally, let me know.

Peace

Ah, the Jeff we all know and love.

[Adam]

Before I read through all the responses:

1. Shoot the T with the lane cleared.

2. Line them up and shoot the FTs for the shooting foul.

Resume from the 2nd set of FTs as if there was no T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

You can't apply these two situations. The rules are very clear on how the OP should be handled, and any exceptions in the case book need to specifically apply if you're going to disregard rules.

And dispense with the insults. They add nothing to the discussion. If you have any questions on this, feel free to write me privately.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Ah, the Jeff we all know and love.

Again, get me and everyone an "official word" to the issue and then we can agree or disagree on the merits. But you cannot do that, because as I suspected you drew your own conclusion before you had other information obviously. That is how you operate and that is your right, but it does not change my stance one bit. You live and work where you do and I will live and work where I do. I think we have both done alright doing what we do, I know I have.

Otherwise, stop trying to tell the world what is "right" on an issue that is not discussed at all under any interpretation or any NF publication. When you find it, let us all know. I will be waiting patiently.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

You can't apply these two situations. The rules are very clear on how the OP should be handled, and any exceptions in the case book need to specifically apply if you're going to disregard rules.

And dispense with the insults. They add nothing to the discussion. If you have any questions on this, feel free to write me privately.

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it. Just taking one statement that is a fundamental and every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second and even gives us some leeway to ignore an infraction until play has continued. Again, if the situation is clear than the NF would have made it clear. Just like you complain about the BC violations rules that you suggest (and I agree with you) are not without conflict, but we also know how the NF wants the rules to apply in that situation. Right now this causes confusion as a part of the penalty is not enforced if I do what some have suggested.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it. Just taking one statement that is a fundamental and every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second and even gives us some leeway to ignore an infraction until play has continued. Again, if the situation is clear than the NF would have made it clear. Just like you complain about the BC violations rules that you suggest (and I agree with you) are not without conflict, but we also know how the NF wants the rules to apply in that situation. Right now this causes confusion as a part of the penalty is not enforced if I do what some have suggested.

Peace

Every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second involves the T actually happening 2nd. There's no exception. The rule is clear enough they don't need to come up with case play for it. It's rare enough there's no need to bother, but the rule isn't in any way ambiguous.

As Camron noted, there are plenty of times when the "possession" part of the penalty is not included. Off the top of my head:

1. End of quarter T.
2. False multiple or false double Technical fouls.

In fact, this is really just a false multiple foul. The rule is clear that it gets enforced in the order of occurrence. Trying to dance around that just doesn't work.

Now, it's exceedingly rare, and many of us will likely never have one. Folks like you who have established their careers likely wouldn't face any backlash for getting it wrong, and newer officials would likely get by with it too because few people would actually know they were wrong. That doesn't make the rule different, though.

And I'd rather get the rule right for that one time I get challenged (by a coach or assigner) who happens to know the rule. I guarantee my assigners would know the rule.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1. A1 starts a try (in the act of shooting).
2. B4 grabs the rim and hangs onto it.
3. B4 lets go of the rim.
4. A1 is fouled in the act of shooting.
5. The shot is missed.

The official deems B4 had no valid safety reason for hanging on the rim and calls a technical foul for that act.

There is one crucial fact missing to make a correct ruling. At what point did the official "call a technical foul?"

While most of the replies have said that the fouls must be penalized in the order in which they occur...the only case book play that gives any guidance (10.4.1 F) says we should "withhold blowing the whistle" until A1 makes or misses the shot when there is a technical foul by the defensive bench while A1 is driving for an apparent goal. I take that casebook play to also mean that if the shooter were fouled on the drive for that apparent goal, we would first call a shooting foul and then a technical foul -- even though the events happened in reverse order.

That's the logic I apply here. I am withholding my whistle for the act of hanging on the rim -- and then penalize the shooting foul first, followed by the technical.

To those who say that's not what the rules require, the rules don't say to ignore a technical foul on the defensive bench until after a player has a drive for an apparent goal -- but the casebook does.

It seems pretty clear that the action here happened in a short time -- otherwise the T would have been whistled before A1 started the act of shooting. Since it wasn't stated, we don't know if the officials blew the whistle for the technical "first" and then for the shooting foul -- or only had one whistle for everything.

There is another casebook play (9.3.3 D) that says we should "temporarily ignore" illegal defensive actions (leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason; excessively swinging elbows) if the offense has a chance to score.

Regardless, I think the casebook provides the correct guidance here -- both for the spirit of the rule (the additional penalty that goes with a technical foul) and the correct application of the rule that sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) what happens first is penalized second.

[JRutledge]

All I am saying is you would ignore a part of the penalty if you do not give the ball to the offended team at the division line. You are not ignoring a shooting foul if you allow that FTs to be taken. The issue is who gets the ball after all of this is done. If anything, you are not even penalizing a big part of a technical foul penalty. That cannot be ignored considering that every T has a note about the penalty being giving to the offended team the ball at the division line. There is nothing that says a shooting foul in all cases should be down with the ball put in play.

No one is even really suggesting that you do not shoot the FTs in the order that they took place, but who you give the ball to at the end could matter. If you shoot the FTs with the shooting foul, anyone can get the ball after that situation. I think that is not the intent of the rule. And again, until someone shows more than "What they think" then we are going to still have this disagreement.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

There is one crucial fact missing to make a correct ruling. At what point did the official "call a technical foul?"

While most of the replies have said that the fouls must be penalized in the order in which they occur...the only case book play that gives any guidance (10.4.1 F) says we should "withhold blowing the whistle" until A1 makes or misses the shot when there is a technical foul by the defensive bench while A1 is driving for an apparent goal. I take that casebook play to also mean that if the shooter were fouled on the drive for that apparent goal, we would first call a shooting foul and then a technical foul -- even though the events happened in reverse order.

That's the logic I apply here. I am withholding my whistle for the act of hanging on the rim -- and then penalize the shooting foul first, followed by the technical.

To those who say that's not what the rules require, the rules don't say to ignore a technical foul on the defensive bench until after a player has a drive for an apparent goal -- but the casebook does.

It seems pretty clear that the action here happened in a short time -- otherwise the T would have been whistled before A1 started the act of shooting. Since it wasn't stated, we don't know if the officials blew the whistle for the technical "first" and then for the shooting foul -- or only had one whistle for everything.

There is another casebook play (9.3.3 D) that says we should "temporarily ignore" illegal defensive actions (leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason; excessively swinging elbows) if the offense has a chance to score.

Regardless, I think the casebook provides the correct guidance here -- both for the spirit of the rule (the additional penalty that goes with a technical foul) and the correct application of the rule that sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) what happens first is penalized second.

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

If it was very clear than we would not be having this disagreement in the first place. Just like the position you take on BC violations and clamor to have changed every year. But again, that is very clear too right?

Peace

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

Not at all. What you contend is a "completely different play" is to me compelling guidance from the NFHS.

Both events are rare (although I have enforced the ignore the bench technical until the play finishes), but they have significant common ground for me to feel one is strong guidance on how to handle the second. They both involve a technical foul against the defense that happens before the offense has a chance to score.

Would I prefer absolute clarity? Of course. But sometimes we have to make do with the tools we have. You can't say there is NEVER a time that we are told to ignore the rules as written -- because I have shown there are times we are instructed to do that. Recognizing that an additional penalty to a technical foul is that the non-offending team gets the ball following the free throws is why I find complete rules support to withhold the whistle and penalize the T second.