Penalty Administration????

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

There is one crucial fact missing to make a correct ruling. At what point did the official "call a technical foul?"

While most of the replies have said that the fouls must be penalized in the order in which they occur...the only case book play that gives any guidance (10.4.1 F) says we should "withhold blowing the whistle" until A1 makes or misses the shot when there is a technical foul by the defensive bench while A1 is driving for an apparent goal. I take that casebook play to also mean that if the shooter were fouled on the drive for that apparent goal, we would first call a shooting foul and then a technical foul -- even though the events happened in reverse order.

That's the logic I apply here. I am withholding my whistle for the act of hanging on the rim -- and then penalize the shooting foul first, followed by the technical.

To those who say that's not what the rules require, the rules don't say to ignore a technical foul on the defensive bench until after a player has a drive for an apparent goal -- but the casebook does.

It seems pretty clear that the action here happened in a short time -- otherwise the T would have been whistled before A1 started the act of shooting. Since it wasn't stated, we don't know if the officials blew the whistle for the technical "first" and then for the shooting foul -- or only had one whistle for everything.

There is another casebook play (9.3.3 D) that says we should "temporarily ignore" illegal defensive actions (leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason; excessively swinging elbows) if the offense has a chance to score.

Regardless, I think the casebook provides the correct guidance here -- both for the spirit of the rule (the additional penalty that goes with a technical foul) and the correct application of the rule that sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) what happens first is penalized second.

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

If it was very clear than we would not be having this disagreement in the first place. Just like the position you take on BC violations and clamor to have changed every year. But again, that is very clear too right?

Peace

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

I've already stated this, but it's a very specific case play that violates the rules as written. Applying it to a completely different play is a pretty small nail on which to hang a very large hat.

Not at all. What you contend is a "completely different play" is to me compelling guidance from the NFHS.

Both events are rare (although I have enforced the ignore the bench technical until the play finishes), but they have significant common ground for me to feel one is strong guidance on how to handle the second. They both involve a technical foul against the defense that happens before the offense has a chance to score.

Would I prefer absolute clarity? Of course. But sometimes we have to make do with the tools we have. You can't say there is NEVER a time that we are told to ignore the rules as written -- because I have shown there are times we are instructed to do that. Recognizing that an additional penalty to a technical foul is that the non-offending team gets the ball following the free throws is why I find complete rules support to withhold the whistle and penalize the T second.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Not at all. What you contend is a "completely different play" is to me compelling guidance from the NFHS.

Both events are rare (although I have enforced the ignore the bench technical until the play finishes), but they have significant common ground for me to feel one is strong guidance on how to handle the second. They both involve a technical foul against the defense that happens before the offense has a chance to score.

Would I prefer absolute clarity? Of course. But sometimes we have to make do with the tools we have. You can't say there is NEVER a time that we are told to ignore the rules as written -- because I have shown there are times we are instructed to do that. Recognizing that an additional penalty to a technical foul is that the non-offending team gets the ball following the free throws is why I find complete rules support to withhold the whistle and penalize the T second.

1. We have an NFHS Case Play stating that an official should withhold his whistle when a member of bench personnel commits a technical foul infraction if an opposing player has an immediate opportunity to score. This is so that the opponent is not unfairly disadvantaged by the offending individual's action.

2. There is no instruction from the NFHS that a withheld whistle is appropriate when the technical foul is committed by someone other than bench personnel. If B3 cursed the official in the backcourt when A1 was about to attempt an uncontested layup, perhaps the official should withhold the whistle, but perhaps not. I've never seen anything from the NFHS stating to withhold the whistle when it is a player committing the technical foul. Personally, I would not. I would use the rules as they are in the book and just determine if continuous motion applies or not. (I believe that this situation can be reasonably debated. There is merit for withholding the whistle and there is merit for simply adhering to the rules as they are written.)

3. Even in a situation in which the whistle is properly withheld--(For example, this sequence: Team A fast break, A1 with the ball and about to shoot, Coach B curses at the official, B2 fouls A1 in the act of shooting.)--the penalties are still properly administered in the order that the ACTS occurred. Under NFHS rules you go by when the ACTION occurred which was the foul or violation, not when the whistle sounded to recognize that action. The technical foul FTs would still properly be attempted first.

A clear example of this principle would be if A1 drives to the basket and there is contact by B1. Official A sounds his whistle and signals a foul. Official B sounds his whistle next and indicates a traveling violation. The officials need to come together and determine which ACT happened first, the foul or the travel. They do not care who blew the whistle first. That isn't part of NFHS rules. If the travel happened first, the ball is dead at that point, not when the whistle sounded, and there is no foul, unless deemed intentional or flagrant. In summary, under NFHS rules, the sequence of all penalty administration is determined by the order in which the ACTIONS took place on the court.