Penalty Administration????

[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

[so cal lurker]

I agree that past "in the order they occur" there is some ambiguity, but after reading I'm convinced that the ball is live after the shooting FTs. to the extent that we are concerned about whether, philisophically, part of the penalty was lost, only sort of. In essence the offense retained possession via the continuing motion rather than the ball being dead. But it's not entirely satisfying as the defense was better off having committed the foul than if the shot had gone in, as the offense would have had the 2 points, 2 FTs, and ball if the shot went in without the foul -- the foul gets the ball back for the defense (absent a missed FT and ORB). Interesting scenario.

[BigCat]

In my day job, when I have to interpret rules or statutes the rules require that I assume that the drafters said what they meant and meant want they said. Here, we all know that the usual penalty for a T is 2 shots and the ball at division line. The drafters of the rules know that too--they put it in the rule. Most of the time we only have one thing to penalize so the team gets the ball at the division line.

In the OP we had 2 fouls happening. The drafters of the rules addressed what to do in that situation---Penalize both fouls in the order they occurred. That is what they have said. If i'm interpreting this language i'm not allowed under statutory construction rules to say the drafters must have forgotten that a T also gives the ball out of bounds at the division line. i'm not allowed to change the wording "penalize in order of occurrence" because technicals are bad and a team should get the ball out of bounds at the division line even when the T happened first. Its a logical thought BUT the drafters said penalize in order of occurrence. That is what i have to do because they said it. The drafters know the normal T penalty. They could have easily said always penalize T last. They didn't.

The rules as they exist today REQUIRE us to shoot 2 for the T and then line everybody up for the other 2 shots and play from there. It would take a change in the rule or another case play to give the ball to the team at the division line. This is what I firmly believe. others will have to make their own decisions. the end...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I agree that past "in the order they occur" there is some ambiguity, but after reading I'm convinced that the ball is live after the shooting FTs. to the extent that we are concerned about whether, philisophically, part of the penalty was lost, only sort of. In essence the offense retained possession via the continuing motion rather than the ball being dead. But it's not entirely satisfying as the defense was better off having committed the foul than if the shot had gone in, as the offense would have had the 2 points, 2 FTs, and ball if the shot went in without the foul -- the foul gets the ball back for the defense (absent a missed FT and ORB). Interesting scenario.

Not true. Whether the shot goes in has no bearing on which order to administer the FTs.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not true. Whether the shot goes in has no bearing on which order to administer the FTs.

Nor did I say there would be. You're misreading what I was saying. I was comparing the foul as oringinally posed with the shot going in *without* a foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So something must not be clear if we are debating this here.

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

While I concur that they are wrong (not that Rut will ever admit such, nor has he ever admitted that), I'm a little more understanding in cases involving unusual situations such as the one in the OP because I've encountered this struggle with many officials in my role of providing instruction to many officials in my referee associations in a couple of different sports.

Unusual situations challenge people mentally. It takes a strong and open mind to be able to process and accept that the normal manner of handling something just isn't appropriate and that the correct outcome may at first seem bizarre. Small-minded people get fixated on some detail (such as technical fouls are followed by a throw-in at the division line) and won't let go. This blocks them from moving forward to the correct solution. They struggle to get over some point which they KNOW and it prevents them from being open to the proper way of dealing with a more complex situation that requires a more elaborate resolution.

In this case, Rut and Johnny rigidly cling to the certitude that after one team commits a technical foul infraction, the other team is awarded two FTs and possession of the ball for a throw-in. They can't conceive that anything should alter this detail and that prevents them from accepting the administration put forth by several others which results from applying the more general NFHS principle of penalizing the fouls in the order of occurrence. Because this administration doesn't end with the offended team being awarded a throw-in, they are compelled to resist, to dig their heels in, shout, even kick and scream. They just can't make the mental leap to the next level.

I used to find it frustrating to encounter such people when instructing officials, but now I just find it sad and pity them. I have come to realize that I'm not going to change the minds of these people who are already set in their beliefs. I move on and turn my attention to educating others and providing them with the guidance needed to not follow down that same mistaken path.

The same concept will apply on this forum. I've resolved to not waste energy on those posters who cannot be convinced that they are incorrect. Instead I will provide posts for other forum members to read and they will hopefully see the error of the ways of those individuals and act differently.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We aren't debating it. There's just a bunch of us who are RIGHT and then there's you, who is WRONG.

OK tough guy. LOL!!!!

Peace

[JRutledge]

I love how when the conversation is about one topic, the NF is wrong, they have to change their wording, anyone who "disagrees with me" is wrong. But when it applies to something else, "The rules are clear" or "We do not need clarification because the interpretations apply."

Just funny how some people in this very thread act when it applies to other topics.

Peace