Penalty Administration????

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by 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.

The "withhold whistle" play only gives us authority to....withhold the whistle. It has nothing to do with what order fouls are penalized when we have more than one. Fouls are always penalized in the order they ocurr....as stated by many above. Thx

[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