Penalty Administration????

[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

[junruh07]

There is absolutely no precedent or support in the rules or case book for carrying one part of a penalty for one violation through the administration of another penalty. There are only two somewhat supported options. The "withheld whistle" casebook could be used to shoot the T after the shooting foul, and the offended team will get the ball. That case doesn't really seem like it fits to me. Or you can administer the penalties in the order they occur. There is absolutely no support to shoot the T freethrows, then the shooting foul, then give the ball as part of the technical.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

That is the funny part. People on this thread love to question the NF on rulings but seem to act like there is no way this could be confusing to other people on this issue.

Oh well, I do not have to work with them anyway.

Peace

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it. Just taking one statement that is a fundamental and every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second and even gives us some leeway to ignore an infraction until play has continued. Again, if the situation is clear than the NF would have made it clear. Just like you complain about the BC violations rules that you suggest (and I agree with you) are not without conflict, but we also know how the NF wants the rules to apply in that situation. Right now this causes confusion as a part of the penalty is not enforced if I do what some have suggested.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it. Just taking one statement that is a fundamental and every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second and even gives us some leeway to ignore an infraction until play has continued. Again, if the situation is clear than the NF would have made it clear. Just like you complain about the BC violations rules that you suggest (and I agree with you) are not without conflict, but we also know how the NF wants the rules to apply in that situation. Right now this causes confusion as a part of the penalty is not enforced if I do what some have suggested.

Peace

Every other interpretation that clearly has the T being enforced second involves the T actually happening 2nd. There's no exception. The rule is clear enough they don't need to come up with case play for it. It's rare enough there's no need to bother, but the rule isn't in any way ambiguous.

As Camron noted, there are plenty of times when the "possession" part of the penalty is not included. Off the top of my head:

1. End of quarter T.
2. False multiple or false double Technical fouls.

In fact, this is really just a false multiple foul. The rule is clear that it gets enforced in the order of occurrence. Trying to dance around that just doesn't work.

Now, it's exceedingly rare, and many of us will likely never have one. Folks like you who have established their careers likely wouldn't face any backlash for getting it wrong, and newer officials would likely get by with it too because few people would actually know they were wrong. That doesn't make the rule different, though.

And I'd rather get the rule right for that one time I get challenged (by a coach or assigner) who happens to know the rule. I guarantee my assigners would know the rule.

[JRutledge]

All I am saying is you would ignore a part of the penalty if you do not give the ball to the offended team at the division line. You are not ignoring a shooting foul if you allow that FTs to be taken. The issue is who gets the ball after all of this is done. If anything, you are not even penalizing a big part of a technical foul penalty. That cannot be ignored considering that every T has a note about the penalty being giving to the offended team the ball at the division line. There is nothing that says a shooting foul in all cases should be down with the ball put in play.

No one is even really suggesting that you do not shoot the FTs in the order that they took place, but who you give the ball to at the end could matter. If you shoot the FTs with the shooting foul, anyone can get the ball after that situation. I think that is not the intent of the rule. And again, until someone shows more than "What they think" then we are going to still have this disagreement.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the rules were clear there would be an interpretation to back it.

No, just the opposite is true. When the rule is NOT clear, an interpretation is issued.

This rule is clear, whether you and johnnyd accept it or not. There's absolutely nothing in the rule book, case book or any interpretation that supports your contention that you do anything other than penalize the fouls in the order of occurrence

[BoomerSooner]

The more I've thought about it, there is a way to award the ball at the division line following the free-throws for the technical foul if anyone believes so strongly that the throw-in provision of the penalty for a technical foul must be upheld. After the FTs for the technical foul, award the ball at the division line for a throw-in. Once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, blow the whistle and acknowledge that you failed to award the FTs for the shooting foul. Using the correctable error rule, have the players line up to shoot free-throws for the shooting foul. As there has not been a change of team possession, play resumes as after any free-throw attempt. At this point, the full penalty for the technical foul has been carried out, the penalties for the fouls were enforced in the order the fouls occurred, and you got to show off your knowledge of the correctable error rule. Problem solved.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, just the opposite is true. When the rule is NOT clear, an interpretation is issued.

This rule is clear, whether you and johnnyd accept it or not. There's absolutely nothing in the rule book, case book or any interpretation that supports your contention that you do anything other than penalize the fouls in the order of occurrence

If you say so.

Again I will use the example again, we have a rule and a casebook on BC violations that many here have been complaining about for years that are very specific in both situations and people here complain that the NF needs to either change the wording or correct the interpretation (two of the most vocal people on those issues commented as if they are clear on this issue), but have the same problems in that case.

So something must not be clear if we are debating this here. We have been down this road before, just acknowledge there is an issue and we can move on.

Peace