Penalty Administration????

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Yes I read your first post, but it did not happen to you and you were describing what happened to them. If it happens to BigCat or anyone else, then maybe I will worry about this situation in that kind of detail. I doubt seriously this is happening very often to anyone else.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes I read your first post, but it did not happen to you and you were describing what happened to them. If it happens to BigCat or anyone else, then maybe I will worry about this situation in that kind of detail. I doubt seriously this is happening very often to anyone else.

Peace

SMH. So, it has to happen to a specific set of people before it is a valid play?

It happened in a game with two state tournament level officials with players obviously playing at or above the rim. They asked me for a reason....they were not certain they did it right they respect my rules knowledge.

There is no need for you to refuse to accept the facts unless you just don't want to admin you were wrong..

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

SMH. So, it has to happen to a specific set of people before it is a valid play?

It happened in a game with two state tournament level officials with players obviously playing at or above the rim. They asked me for a reason....they were not certain they did it right they respect my rules knowledge.

There is no need for you to refuse to accept the facts unless you just don't want to admin you were wrong..

Wow, we are really sensitive about this I see.

My point man is this is not likely to happen very often to any of us if ever. So great story, but I doubt that many of us will ever have such events happen to them personally. I know I have never heard or had such a situation happen where this was even a question of how or when you penalize a shooting foul to a T. And I was talking to BigCat as well that was suggesting if it happens to him, then we can worry about what we disagree with at that point. It was actually a joke. I will also suggest that this will probably not happen to you either in this context. And one of the reasons it is not in any case play or in the case book is because this rarely if ever happens to anyone where there needs to be a clarification. I have seen a lot of basketball from regular season, post season, summer basketball, AAU Basketball and never seen such a situation where a regular foul and technical foul took place in such a way where we had to even question how to apply them. When it happens to you personally, let me know.

Peace

[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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 8-6-2

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.

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.

[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

[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.