Penalty Administration????

[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 It is superceded by the penalty for the next foul.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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, 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.

You are not penalizing one of the fouls, at least not in total. That is the problem and why this needs clarity. Until then we are assuming what is wanted when only one kind of situation is discussed in the casebook.

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are not penalizing one of the fouls, at least not in total. That is the problem and why this needs clarity. Until then we are assuming what is wanted when only one kind of situation is discussed in the casebook.

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

What casebook play? Reference?

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it.

No, just the opposite is true. When the rule is NOT clear, an interpretation is issued.

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

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, just the opposite is true. When the rule is NOT clear, an interpretation is issued.

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

If you say so.

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

[so cal lurker]

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.

[BigCat]

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...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What casebook play? Reference?

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

Thanks I just wanted to know what play I was using for this discussion.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

Not true. Whether the shot goes in has no bearing on which order to administer the FTs.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Thanks I just wanted to know what play I was using for this discussion.

Peace

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So something must not be clear if we are debating this here.

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.