Penalty Administration????

[JRutledge]

A couple of things are not known by your description of this play.

Did the ball touch the rim in any part of this situation?

And if the ball did touch the rim, did the ball touch before or after the ball came back to its original position? If the answer is no it did not touch the rim, then you cannot have any violation that involves counting the basket (Basket Interference).

At this point all you can have is a T. Shoot the FTs and give the ball to Team A at the division line. Of course if you had the BI called, you would give points, but nothing else would be different in the end.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A couple of things are not known by your description of this play.

Did the ball touch the rim in any part of this situation?

And if the ball did touch the rim, did the ball touch before or after the ball came back to its original position? If the answer is no it did not touch the rim, then you cannot have any violation that involves counting the basket (Basket Interference).

There was no BI. That isn't part of the situation. I apologize for not making that clear.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

At this point all you can have is a T. Shoot the FTs and give the ball to Team A at the division line. Of course if you had the BI called, you would give points, but nothing else would be different in the end.

Peace

Are you saying you don't administer the shooting foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There was no BI. That isn't part of the situation. I apologize for not making that clear.



Are you saying you don't administer the shooting foul?

No, I should have made this clear as well. You shoot the shooting FTs first and then the T second, all in the order this occurred. I was only trying to make clear that you would not have the BI part unless that took place which you said was not apart of the play.

Peace

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You shoot the shooting FTs first and then the T second, all in the order this occurred.

Except that wasn't the order it occurred in the OP. The Technical occurred before the shooting foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Altor

Except that wasn't the order it occurred in the OP. The Technical occurred before the shooting foul.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

Except that wasn't the order it occurred in the OP. The Technical occurred before the shooting foul.

Well we do not have a POI aspect to this, so I do not know how you can give the T first. I guess if you want the semantics of it to be you shoot the T first, but still at the end of it you give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Either way is really not a major concern if you ask me. The T does not wipe out the shooting foul and if you want to be that precise, then shoot the T first, but that to me is semantics based on the play we are discussing and why I asked about the BI element to this. Because it might be possible as well that the very same player shoots all the FT and you are shooting 4 FTs either way.

Hey, some people worry about the smallest things.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Hey, some people worry about the smallest things.

Like wrongly awarding a team possession of the ball. Must not be a big deal where some people officiate.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Like wrongly awarding a team possession of the ball. Must not be a big deal where some people officiate.

Are you saying you are giving the ball to Team B at some point?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Like wrongly awarding a team possession of the ball. Must not be a big deal where some people officiate.

You have a case play showing that we don't give the ball back to Team A after a technical on Team B?

One play you cited is irrelevant because it doesn't deal with technical fouls. The other play you cited is not relevant because the throwin had started for the technical foul, which means the ball became live.

You need to come up with something on this one.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess if you want the semantics of it to be you shoot the T first, but still at the end of it you give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Either way is really not a major concern if you ask me.

To be clear for others reading this thread, the part in red is absolutely wrong under NFHS rules, and giving an unwarranted possession to a team certainly is a major concern, if you ask me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

To be clear for others reading this thread, the part in red is absolutely wrong under NFHS rules, and giving an unwarranted possession to a team certainly is a major concern, if you ask me.

Only 3 people have responded to this topic outside of the OPer, so not sure what people you are talking about. And you and I are the ones that have said the most and as usual you are trying to prove something that is irrelevant. But what else is new?

Peace