Penalty Administration????

[deecee]

Not for nothing. I also agree with Rut's POV in addition to my earlier statement that was contradictory. In the end a T in HS awards the offended team the ball. There is clear direction on what would happen if another T was issued after the fact, but not so much for a common foul.

Also Nevada's previous example from post 6 is flawed in that the offended team was awarded the throw in and the ball was live. Nowhere is the expectation that they get unlimited attempts to complete the throw in for the T.

I think both applications are correct and I would be shocked if this happened in a sanctioned game and either method was rebuked (by anyone other than a coach of course). Both arguments are valid and I can see either being applicable.

[BoomerSooner]

Late to the party, but you have to administer the penalty for each foul in the same order in which the fouls occurred. The penalty for a technical foul is two FTs and throw-in opportunity at the division line. The subsequent shooting foul doesn't erase of supersede the penalty for the technical foul, it just comes next and the rules outline the procedure for resuming play following FTs for a personal foul. That procedure doesn't include returning to the penalty for another foul or awarding possession to either team because of a previous foul. I agree that possession is a big part of the penalty for a technical foul, but with regard to the enforcement of penalties for fouls, no preferential status is given to any type of foul over another in the rules. The only clearly stated guide for this situation is to penalize in the order the fouls occurred.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Late to the party, but you have to administer the penalty for each foul in the same order in which the fouls occurred. The penalty for a technical foul is two FTs and throw-in opportunity at the division line. The subsequent shooting foul doesn't erase of supersede the penalty for the technical foul, it just comes next and the rules outline the procedure for resuming play following FTs for a personal foul. That procedure doesn't include returning to the penalty for another foul or awarding possession to either team because of a previous foul. I agree that possession is a big part of the penalty for a technical foul, but with regard to the enforcement of penalties for fouls, no preferential status is given to any type of foul over another in the rules. The only clearly stated guide for this situation is to penalize in the order the fouls occurred.

Nicely said.

And the rules cover this perfectly....order of occurrence. That covers everything. Unless an exception is stated, there is no reason to do otherwise.

The throwin after the T isn't so much part of the penalty but the method of resuming play after the T. However, if there is another penalty to be administered, you don't resume play but move on to that penalty. Just like any other infraction.

Example: The penalty for traveling, OOB, etc. is a throwin for he other team. But, if a foul occurs before that throwin is started, you skip the throwin for the traveling and move onto the foul.

Why would it be any different for two fouls?

The fundamental point of this situation is that technicals are no different than other fouls regarding the order of penalty enforcement. When there is a sequence of infractions (violations or fouls, personal or technical), the last one to occur determines how play is ultimately resumed.

[johnny d]

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

Johnny,
I understand your reasoning and the sentiment that the Team should also get the ball. However, the language in the rules says the "fouls are penalized in order they occurred." That is the only language dealing with the situation. It is the order of the fouls that matters under the language of the rules. As I said to Jeff, we will agree to disagree on this one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

As I said to Jeff, we will agree to disagree on this one.

I doubt this will even happen anyway for us to have much of a disagreement in the real world.

If this happens let me know.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I doubt this will even happen anyway for us to have much of a disagreement in the real world.

If this happens let me know.

Peace

Did you not read my first post? It did happen. That is why I brought it up. The person it happened to consulted me on whether they handled it correctly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

i am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team a the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so i am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, i am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

msu.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am accessing the free throws for the shooting foul first, followed by the free throws for the technical foul, and then giving team A the ball at the division line. My reasoning is as follows: The act of shooting started first and the foul on the shooter, even though it happened after the hanging on the rim, is a continuation of the first act, so I am considering it part of that act. Thus, even though the order of the actual fouls was technical and then shooting foul, I am considering the order of the actions to which the fouls are attributed, and penalizing in that order.

1. Look up the difference between "access" and "assess."
2. You are completely wrong under NFHS rules. The timing of the action determines when an infraction occurs, not when an official elects to penalize it.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Look up the difference between "access" and "assess."
2. You are completely wrong under NFHS rules. The timing of the action determines when an infraction occurs, not when an official elects to penalize it.

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

[OKREF]

Well, if this ever happens to me in a game, I know I have the rule book and I can quote it to any coach who questions the way I would penalize. The rule book says to penalize in the order of occurrence. It doesn't say, anywhere that I can find, to shoot the technical foul second. In this situation. This play is different because we have a foul involving a shooter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

[Deleted personal insult]

2. You are wrong. There is NFHS precedent that allows officials to withhold penalizing an infraction (specifically a technical foul) until after an opponent completes a scoring move. 10.4.1 situation F. So the ruling isn't as cut and dry as you or Rust would like it to be.

You can't apply these two situations. The rules are very clear on how the OP should be handled, and any exceptions in the case book need to specifically apply if you're going to disregard rules.

And dispense with the insults. They add nothing to the discussion. If you have any questions on this, feel free to write me privately.