Penalty Administration????

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I certainly do agree that it would be rare to have a T and the ball remain live and then have a shooting foul on same team etc. I guess I just go back to the basic principles. penalize fouls in the order they occurred. That is really the only statement in the rules that might cover this at this time.

I only mentioned the NCAA rules because that is the only place i know (contact dead ball T) where you might not penalize fouls in the order they occurred.

We will agree to disagree on this one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I certainly do agree that it would be rare to have a T and the ball remain live and then have a shooting foul on same team etc. I guess I just go back to the basic principles. penalize fouls in the order they occurred. That is really the only statement in the rules that might cover this at this time.

I only mentioned the NCAA rules because that is the only place i know (contact dead ball T) where you might not penalize fouls in the order they occurred.

We will agree to disagree on this one.

My only rub on this is that you give the ball at the end of a T to go to POI which you would be doing if we do it as you suggest (something the rule does not necessarily suggest either). Again, I think this is something that needs to be clarified by our state or the NF, because I still do not see anything that says you ignore the T portion of the penalty. Shooting in a specific order to me is not what I am discussing. Otherwise I will worry about it when it happens.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My only rub on this is that you give the ball at the end of a T to go to POI which you would be doing if we do it as you suggest (something the rule does not necessarily suggest either). Again, I think this is something that needs to be clarified by our state or the NF, because I still do not see anything that says you ignore the T portion of the penalty. Shooting in a specific order to me is not what I am discussing. Otherwise I will worry about it when it happens.

Peace

I am penalizing the fouls in the order they occurred. It just so happens that it looks like POI. I'm not using POI at all here. Agreed most of the time we will have a foul and then the T second. T would be shot last and the team would get the ball.

Anyway, not something ive ever had to administer and likely won't ever have to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I am penalizing the fouls in the order they occurred. It just so happens that it looks like POI. I'm not using POI at all here. Agreed most of the time we will have a foul and then the T second. T would be shot last and the team would get the ball.

Anyway, not something ive ever had to administer and likely won't ever have to.

Me neither, but I also think that is why the question was asked. It has some contradictions to the administration.

Peace

[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.

[deecee]

Penalize in the order they occurred.

[Camron Rust]

Figured this would generate some discussion.


My response to the person who asked me about what should have been done...penalize in the order of occurrence.

That means you shoot the FTs for T, then you shoot the FTs for the shooting foul with the players on the lane and resume after those FTs as in any other shooting foul.

The subsequent personal foul eliminates the possession element of a T. This is not unlike a series of technical fouls that are not double fouls. All the FTs are shot, but possession at the end is determined by the last foul to have occurred. Alternately, this is not unlike a personal foul that occurs during the throwin for a T. The throwin is abandoned and the personal foul is penalized.

There is no need for a case play here, applying the penalties (in their entirety) in the order of occurrence is an NFHS rules fundamental.

[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