Penalty Administration????

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Or not giving Team A the ball back following a T on Team B?

Exactly. I did not realize that a shooting foul superseded a T on a player. And BTW, this is all fouls committed by the same freakin team!!!!

Peace

[OKREF]

If the technical foul happened first, which means there would have been a whistle, does the ball become dead at the moment the whistle blows? If so there is no foul on the shooter. That contact would be ignored unless flagrant or intentional. Just asking a question.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If the technical foul happened first, which means there would have been a whistle, does the ball become dead at the moment the whistle blows? If so there is no foul on the shooter.

Continous motion would still apply.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Continous motion would still apply.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Yeah, I see that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If the technical foul happened first, which means there would have been a whistle, does the ball become dead at the moment the whistle blows? If so there is no foul on the shooter. That contact would be ignored unless flagrant or intentional. Just asking a question.

The play would be dead technically before that but by definition I do not think we just ignore an airborne shooter or allow all illegal contact with them to be simply ignored if it is apart of the play before it became dead. The whistle does not kill the play, it is already dead. It does matter on some level what happened first. I just do not believe that you give the ball to Team A on a FT and not administer the T properly.

And until I read a ruling or case play, I stand by that part of my comments.

Peace

[OKREF]

This answers my question.

casebook

6.7C: Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap?

Ruling: the ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free throw tries. (4-11; 4-41-1)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The play would be dead technically before that but by definition I do not think we just ignore an airborne shooter or allow all illegal contact with them to be simply ignored if it is apart of the play before it became dead. The whistle does not kill the play, it is already dead. It does matter on some level what happened first. I just do not believe that you give the ball to Team A on a FT and not administer the T properly.

And until I read a ruling or case play, I stand by that part of my comments.

Peace

The shooter was in the act. The whistle for B1 T stops the clock but, because shooter A1 was in the act, the ball remains live. Continuous motion. Fouls are always penalized in the order which they occurred in NFHS. The fact that the first foul here happens to be a T doesn't change that. If you give A the ball out of bounds at division line you are in effect, penalizing the T last. Not in the order they occurred.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The shooter was in the act. The whistle for B1 T stops the clock but, because shooter A1 was in the act, the ball remains live. Continuous motion. Fouls are always penalized in the order which they occurred in NFHS. The fact that the first foul here happens to be a T doesn't change that. If you give A the ball out of bounds at division line you are in effect, penalizing the T last. Not in the order they occurred.

Case play reference or not?

The rule to my understanding says you shoot the FTs in the order they took place. I have never read anything that suggests you do not administer a T any differently because you have a shooting foul or other foul. Actually you would not have other fouls in almost every case because a T would make the play dead and unless the later action is intentional or flagrant in nature (contact wise). So unless I see a case play on this or interpretation from somewhere, I am not buying that you ignore the one of the biggest parts of the technical administration and not give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Because if you shoot the FTs after the Ts, you are administering that with a POI action which is not what the rule says at the NF level for any T.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have never read anything that suggests you do not administer a T any differently because you have a shooting foul or other foul.

Replace the shooting foul with a pushing foul on A5 after the shot is in flight with Team B, their 7th team foul.

1- Shoot the technical foul FTs against B4.
2- Resume play with the 1 & 1 for team B, not with team A getting the ball at the division line.

You don't penalize it differently because it's a false multiple foul than you would a false double foul. It makes no difference which team commits the foul in the two scenarios. Penalize in the order in which they occur.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Case play reference or not?

The rule to my understanding says you shoot the FTs in the order they took place. I have never read anything that suggests you do not administer a T any differently because you have a shooting foul or other foul. Actually you would not have other fouls in almost every case because a T would make the play dead and unless the later action is intentional or flagrant in nature (contact wise). So unless I see a case play on this or interpretation from somewhere, I am not buying that you ignore the one of the biggest parts of the technical administration and not give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Because if you shoot the FTs after the Ts, you are administering that with a POI action which is not what the rule says at the NF level for any T.

Peace

The language is that penalties should be administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. 8.6.2 B and c gives us that language. as do plays in 4.19, 5.6.2 h. 6.4.1 f. The plays themselves aren't really relevant. Here the T happened first. penalize it first pursuant to the language quoted above. Then penalize the next foul. The only language is "penalize fouls in order they occurred." There is no language saying penalize the T last even though it happened first. (which is what we would be doing if we also gave A the ball back at the division line.)


In NCAA if there are multiple technicals during a dead ball and one is contact dead ball it is penalized last (even if it happened first). also, if there's a double foul in NCAA and one is flagrant play is resumed as if the flagrant is the only foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The language is that penalties should be administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. 8.6.2 B and c gives us that language. as do plays in 4.19, 5.6.2 h. 6.4.1 f. The plays themselves aren't really relevant. Here the T happened first. penalize it first pursuant to the language quoted above. Then penalize the next foul. The only language is "penalize fouls in order they occurred." There is no language saying penalize the T last even though it happened first. (which is what we would be doing if we also gave A the ball back at the division line.)


In NCAA if there are multiple technicals during a dead ball and one is contact dead ball it is penalized last (even if it happened first). also, if there's a double foul in NCAA and one is flagrant play is resumed as if the flagrant is the only foul.

I am sorry, but unless you have a case play that suggests what you are saying, all that I read into this is you shoot in the order which is part of the administration. The T is a big penalty for a reason and unless I see something specific that suggests that "administering" is all about who gets the ball over a T, then I might go along with that position. I just do not agree that it is that cut and dry, but more so speculation with a very unusual situation that does not seem to be covered. I do not know many situations where you would have a T first followed by another action that has to be called but maybe this situation other than another technical foul. Most case plays use examples of clear one before the other and this is not exactly the case.

Again, I was not talking about NCAA because those are handled differently almost entirely. So I do not want to muddy the waters with NCAA rules at this time as even both of those codes handle some situations differently for some reason.

Peace