|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Peace |
In the absence of a case book situation to provide clarity to this discussion, the rule book is left as the only authority on the matter. Until someone can point to a case book situation that clearly alters the principle that fouls are penalized in the order of occurrence, the rule book's directive is the authority. Even the case book situation that allows for withholding the whistle does not provide a means for altering this principle. Admittedly it doesn't include the addition of another foul, but in the absence of that, we again return to the rule book.
On another note, there are some contending the likelihood of seeing this exact scenario play out is minimal and I agree with that point. The more likely scenario for this type of situation to occur is a player begins the shooting motion and a player or coach from the opposing team uses profanity prior to the shooter being fouled. I see this situation being analogous and much more likely. |
Quote:
Go back to the NFHS Casebook Play: A1 is driving in for an contested layup and before A1 is in the Act of Shooting B-HC commits and Unsportsmanlike TF. The NFHS CB Ruling is to treat B-HC's infraction as a DDB and wait to A1's FGA has left his/her hand before stopping further play. But lets add something extra to that NFHS CB Play: B1 hustles down the court in an effort to keep A1 from scoring, and after B-HC has committed his TF, B1 fouls A1 in the Act of Shooting. We have a FMF. FMFs are penalized in the order in which they are committed with the ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence is the only foul that was committed. B1's PF was the last foul in the FMF sequence. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
This rule is clear, whether you and johnnyd accept it or not. There's absolutely nothing in the rule book, case book or any interpretation that supports your contention that you do anything other than penalize the fouls in the order of occurrence |
The more I've thought about it, there is a way to award the ball at the division line following the free-throws for the technical foul if anyone believes so strongly that the throw-in provision of the penalty for a technical foul must be upheld. After the FTs for the technical foul, award the ball at the division line for a throw-in. Once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, blow the whistle and acknowledge that you failed to award the FTs for the shooting foul. Using the correctable error rule, have the players line up to shoot free-throws for the shooting foul. As there has not been a change of team possession, play resumes as after any free-throw attempt. At this point, the full penalty for the technical foul has been carried out, the penalties for the fouls were enforced in the order the fouls occurred, and you got to show off your knowledge of the correctable error rule. Problem solved.
|
Quote:
Again I will use the example again, we have a rule and a casebook on BC violations that many here have been complaining about for years that are very specific in both situations and people here complain that the NF needs to either change the wording or correct the interpretation (two of the most vocal people on those issues commented as if they are clear on this issue), but have the same problems in that case. So something must not be clear if we are debating this here. We have been down this road before, just acknowledge there is an issue and we can move on. Peace |
I agree that past "in the order they occur" there is some ambiguity, but after reading I'm convinced that the ball is live after the shooting FTs. to the extent that we are concerned about whether, philisophically, part of the penalty was lost, only sort of. In essence the offense retained possession via the continuing motion rather than the ball being dead. But it's not entirely satisfying as the defense was better off having committed the foul than if the shot had gone in, as the offense would have had the 2 points, 2 FTs, and ball if the shot went in without the foul -- the foul gets the ball back for the defense (absent a missed FT and ORB). Interesting scenario.
|
In my day job, when I have to interpret rules or statutes the rules require that I assume that the drafters said what they meant and meant want they said. Here, we all know that the usual penalty for a T is 2 shots and the ball at division line. The drafters of the rules know that too--they put it in the rule. Most of the time we only have one thing to penalize so the team gets the ball at the division line.
In the OP we had 2 fouls happening. The drafters of the rules addressed what to do in that situation---Penalize both fouls in the order they occurred. That is what they have said. If i'm interpreting this language i'm not allowed under statutory construction rules to say the drafters must have forgotten that a T also gives the ball out of bounds at the division line. i'm not allowed to change the wording "penalize in order of occurrence" because technicals are bad and a team should get the ball out of bounds at the division line even when the T happened first. Its a logical thought BUT the drafters said penalize in order of occurrence. That is what i have to do because they said it. The drafters know the normal T penalty. They could have easily said always penalize T last. They didn't. The rules as they exist today REQUIRE us to shoot 2 for the T and then line everybody up for the other 2 shots and play from there. It would take a change in the rule or another case play to give the ball to the team at the division line. This is what I firmly believe. others will have to make their own decisions. the end... |
Quote:
From the 2015-16 NFHS Casebook: Casebook Play 10.4.1, Situation F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle this situation. RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess Team B head coach or bench personnel with at technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be ejected. If A' coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (R1-S4-A1a) MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're welcome. I am not going to climb up into the attic to check, but I am pretty sure that that CB Play has been around for far too many years that I care to remember. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04am. |