Penalty Administration????

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

1. We have an NFHS Case Play stating that an official should withhold his whistle when a member of bench personnel commits a technical foul infraction if an opposing player has an immediate opportunity to score. This is so that the opponent is not unfairly disadvantaged by the offending individual's action.

2. There is no instruction from the NFHS that a withheld whistle is appropriate when the technical foul is committed by someone other than bench personnel. If B3 cursed the official in the backcourt when A1 was about to attempt an uncontested layup, perhaps the official should withhold the whistle, but perhaps not. I've never seen anything from the NFHS stating to withhold the whistle when it is a player committing the technical foul. Personally, I would not. I would use the rules as they are in the book and just determine if continuous motion applies or not. (I believe that this situation can be reasonably debated. There is merit for withholding the whistle and there is merit for simply adhering to the rules as they are written.)

3. Even in a situation in which the whistle is properly withheld--(For example, this sequence: Team A fast break, A1 with the ball and about to shoot, Coach B curses at the official, B2 fouls A1 in the act of shooting.)--the penalties are still properly administered in the order that the ACTS occurred. Under NFHS rules you go by when the ACTION occurred which was the foul or violation, not when the whistle sounded to recognize that action. The technical foul FTs would still properly be attempted first.

A clear example of this principle would be if A1 drives to the basket and there is contact by B1. Official A sounds his whistle and signals a foul. Official B sounds his whistle next and indicates a traveling violation. The officials need to come together and determine which ACT happened first, the foul or the travel. They do not care who blew the whistle first. That isn't part of NFHS rules. If the travel happened first, the ball is dead at that point, not when the whistle sounded, and there is no foul, unless deemed intentional or flagrant. In summary, under NFHS rules, the sequence of all penalty administration is determined by the order in which the ACTIONS took place on the court.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

While I concur that they are wrong (not that Rut will ever admit such, nor has he ever admitted that), I'm a little more understanding in cases involving unusual situations such as the one in the OP because I've encountered this struggle with many officials in my role of providing instruction to many officials in my referee associations in a couple of different sports.

Unusual situations challenge people mentally. It takes a strong and open mind to be able to process and accept that the normal manner of handling something just isn't appropriate and that the correct outcome may at first seem bizarre. Small-minded people get fixated on some detail (such as technical fouls are followed by a throw-in at the division line) and won't let go. This blocks them from moving forward to the correct solution. They struggle to get over some point which they KNOW and it prevents them from being open to the proper way of dealing with a more complex situation that requires a more elaborate resolution.

In this case, Rut and Johnny rigidly cling to the certitude that after one team commits a technical foul infraction, the other team is awarded two FTs and possession of the ball for a throw-in. They can't conceive that anything should alter this detail and that prevents them from accepting the administration put forth by several others which results from applying the more general NFHS principle of penalizing the fouls in the order of occurrence. Because this administration doesn't end with the offended team being awarded a throw-in, they are compelled to resist, to dig their heels in, shout, even kick and scream. They just can't make the mental leap to the next level.

I used to find it frustrating to encounter such people when instructing officials, but now I just find it sad and pity them. I have come to realize that I'm not going to change the minds of these people who are already set in their beliefs. I move on and turn my attention to educating others and providing them with the guidance needed to not follow down that same mistaken path.

The same concept will apply on this forum. I've resolved to not waste energy on those posters who cannot be convinced that they are incorrect. Instead I will provide posts for other forum members to read and they will hopefully see the error of the ways of those individuals and act differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

OK tough guy. LOL!!!!

Peace

[JRutledge]

I love how when the conversation is about one topic, the NF is wrong, they have to change their wording, anyone who "disagrees with me" is wrong. But when it applies to something else, "The rules are clear" or "We do not need clarification because the interpretations apply."

Just funny how some people in this very thread act when it applies to other topics.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I love how when the conversation is about one topic, the NF is wrong, they have to change their wording, anyone who "disagrees with me" is wrong. But when it applies to something else, "The rules are clear" or "We do not need clarification because the interpretations apply."

Just funny how some people in this very thread act when it applies to other topics.

Peace

Assuming you're talking about the BC violation scenario, the difference is we can cite the rules and case plays that are in conflict with each other.

In this case, you've offering absolutely nothing in the rules or interpretations that support your contention. You just keep posting that we have ignored part of the penalty part of the equation, even though it's been shown that the ball is not always awarded in false foul situations.

But keep right on pushing the wrong ruling. We who have been here for years are used to you being wrong, and refusing to admit.

Done with this.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Assuming you're talking about the BC violation scenario, the difference is we can cite the rules and case plays that are in conflict with each other.

In this case, you've offering absolutely nothing in the rules or interpretations that support your contention. You just keep posting that we have ignored part of the penalty part of the equation, even though it's been shown that the ball is not always awarded in false foul situations.

But keep right on pushing the wrong ruling. We who have been here for years are used to you being wrong, and refusing to admit.

Done with this.

Tony:

Give it a rest. Rut, asked me for the Casebook Play and I provided it and he accepted it.

MTD, Sr.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Nor did I say there would be. You're misreading what I was saying. I was comparing the foul as oringinally posed with the shot going in *without* a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Tony:

Give it a rest. Rut, asked me for the Casebook Play and I provided it and he accepted it.

MTD, Sr.

Tony was looking for agreement and acceptance of the position. That is not going to happen unless someone can provide me the information from the NF that says that was their intent or not intent. Until then, I stand my my concern.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

Altor cited 8-6-2 prior to his comment above…And actually, it is the section that DIRECTLY addresses the situation.

"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."

It is Crystal clear that fouls are penalized in the order they occur... and if the last foul is a T, Intentional or Flagrant then the ball will be put in play by a throw in. The Technical foul in our OP was first, the foul on the shooter in the OP was last and was NOT a T, or intentional, or flagrant. line them up and shoot. The NF has told us what to do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Altor cited 8-6-2 prior to his comment above…And actually, it is the section that DIRECTLY addresses the situation.

"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."

It is Crystal clear that fouls are penalized in the order they occur... and if the last foul is a T, Intentional or Flagrant then the ball will be put in play by a throw in. The Technical foul in our OP was first, the foul on the shooter in the OP was last and was NOT a T, or intentional, or flagrant. line them up and shoot. The NF has told us what to do.

I agree. When Altor cited that rule I felt that was enough to fall back on.

But I have no problem with anybody who questions the Fed after the last 4-5 years of incompetency in publishing rules.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[junruh07]

There is absolutely no precedent or support in the rules or case book for carrying one part of a penalty for one violation through the administration of another penalty. There are only two somewhat supported options. The "withheld whistle" casebook could be used to shoot the T after the shooting foul, and the offended team will get the ball. That case doesn't really seem like it fits to me. Or you can administer the penalties in the order they occur. There is absolutely no support to shoot the T freethrows, then the shooting foul, then give the ball as part of the technical.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by junruh07

There is absolutely no precedent or support in the rules or case book for carrying one part of a penalty for one violation through the administration of another penalty. There are only two somewhat supported options. The "withheld whistle" casebook could be used to shoot the T after the shooting foul, and the offended team will get the ball. That case doesn't really seem like it fits to me. Or you can administer the penalties in the order they occur. There is absolutely no support to shoot the T freethrows, then the shooting foul, then give the ball as part of the technical.

The "withhold whistle" play only gives us authority to....withhold the whistle. It has nothing to do with what order fouls are penalized when we have more than one. Fouls are always penalized in the order they ocurr....as stated by many above. Thx

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I agree. When Altor cited that rule I felt that was enough to fall back on.

But I have no problem with anybody who questions the Fed after the last 4-5 years of incompetency in publishing rules.

That is the funny part. People on this thread love to question the NF on rulings but seem to act like there is no way this could be confusing to other people on this issue.

Oh well, I do not have to work with them anyway.

Peace