Penalty Administration????
 

This really happened. It wan't in my game, it was relayed to me recently. I don't remember all of the specifics but here is the order of events....

1. A1 starts a try (in the act of shooting).
2. B4 grabs the rim and hangs onto it.
3. B4 lets go of the rim.
4. A1 is fouled in the act of shooting.
5. The shot is missed.

The official deems B4 had no valid safety reason for hanging on the rim and calls a technical foul for that act.

The point of this is not to debate whether the T was justified or the timing of the events....those are a given.

What are the penalties and how are they administered?

A couple of things are not known by your description of this play.

Did the ball touch the rim in any part of this situation?

And if the ball did touch the rim, did the ball touch before or after the ball came back to its original position? If the answer is no it did not touch the rim, then you cannot have any violation that involves counting the basket (Basket Interference).

At this point all you can have is a T. Shoot the FTs and give the ball to Team A at the division line. Of course if you had the BI called, you would give points, but nothing else would be different in the end.

Peace

There was no BI. That isn't part of the situation. I apologize for not making that clear.

Are you saying you don't administer the shooting foul?

No, I should have made this clear as well. You shoot the shooting FTs first and then the T second, all in the order this occurred. I was only trying to make clear that you would not have the BI part unless that took place which you said was not apart of the play.

Peace

Except that wasn't the order it occurred in the OP. The Technical occurred before the shooting foul.

Precisely why Rut is wrong.

Under NFHS rules fouls are administered in the order in which they occur.

The FTs for the technical foul with be attempted first by any member of Team A, then players will be allowed to occupy the lane spaces and the FTs for the shooting foul will be attempted by A1. The game will resume as after any normal FT attempts. The throw-in penalty for the technical foul vanishes. It is superceded by the penalty for the next foul.

I will make this clear with two examples.
1. B3 is charged with a technical foul. The FTs are attempted and the ball is placed at the disposal of A4 for the ensuing throw-in. While A4 is holding the ball B5 fouls A5 by holding him.
The game continues by administering the penalty for B5's foul. Either a throw-in closest to the spot of that foul or bonus FTs for A5. The throw-in which was in progress for the technical foul is halted and then disappears. You never go back to it.

2. A3 begins a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball. A4 is setting a screen for A3. B2 shoves A4 to the ground and then proceeds to foul A3 on the arm while he is releasing the try. Prior to this action Team B had five team fouls.
Both fouls are reported and charged to B2 because the ball was live the entire time. The penalty for the foul against A4 would be a throw-in, but since another foul occurred after that we skip that throw-in and proceed to the administration of the penalty for the foul against A3 in the act of shooting. The teams will line up and A3 with attempt FTs.

Well we do not have a POI aspect to this, so I do not know how you can give the T first. I guess if you want the semantics of it to be you shoot the T first, but still at the end of it you give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Either way is really not a major concern if you ask me. The T does not wipe out the shooting foul and if you want to be that precise, then shoot the T first, but that to me is semantics based on the play we are discussing and why I asked about the BI element to this. Because it might be possible as well that the very same player shoots all the FT and you are shooting 4 FTs either way.

Hey, some people worry about the smallest things. ;)

Peace

Like wrongly awarding a team possession of the ball. Must not be a big deal where some people officiate.

To be clear for others reading this thread, the part in red is absolutely wrong under NFHS rules, and giving an unwarranted possession to a team certainly is a major concern, if you ask me.

Are you saying you are giving the ball to Team B at some point?

Peace

Only 3 people have responded to this topic outside of the OPer, so not sure what people you are talking about. And you and I are the ones that have said the most and as usual you are trying to prove something that is irrelevant. But what else is new?

Peace

You have a case play showing that we don't give the ball back to Team A after a technical on Team B?

One play you cited is irrelevant because it doesn't deal with technical fouls. The other play you cited is not relevant because the throwin had started for the technical foul, which means the ball became live.

You need to come up with something on this one.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Penalize in the order fouls occurred. T occurred first. A gets 2 FTs for the T. Then put all players on the line and shoot the Fts for the shooting foul. A will not get the ball out of bounds for the T. The T happened before the shooting foul.

Exactly. I did not realize that a shooting foul superseded a T on a player. And BTW, this is all fouls committed by the same freakin team!!!!

Peace

If the technical foul happened first, which means there would have been a whistle, does the ball become dead at the moment the whistle blows? If so there is no foul on the shooter. That contact would be ignored unless flagrant or intentional. Just asking a question.

Continous motion would still apply.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Yeah, I see that.

The play would be dead technically before that but by definition I do not think we just ignore an airborne shooter or allow all illegal contact with them to be simply ignored if it is apart of the play before it became dead. The whistle does not kill the play, it is already dead. It does matter on some level what happened first. I just do not believe that you give the ball to Team A on a FT and not administer the T properly.

And until I read a ruling or case play, I stand by that part of my comments.

Peace

This answers my question.

casebook

6.7C: Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap?

Ruling: the ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free throw tries. (4-11; 4-41-1)

The shooter was in the act. The whistle for B1 T stops the clock but, because shooter A1 was in the act, the ball remains live. Continuous motion. Fouls are always penalized in the order which they occurred in NFHS. The fact that the first foul here happens to be a T doesn't change that. If you give A the ball out of bounds at division line you are in effect, penalizing the T last. Not in the order they occurred.

Case play reference or not?

The rule to my understanding says you shoot the FTs in the order they took place. I have never read anything that suggests you do not administer a T any differently because you have a shooting foul or other foul. Actually you would not have other fouls in almost every case because a T would make the play dead and unless the later action is intentional or flagrant in nature (contact wise). So unless I see a case play on this or interpretation from somewhere, I am not buying that you ignore the one of the biggest parts of the technical administration and not give the ball to the offended team at the division line. Because if you shoot the FTs after the Ts, you are administering that with a POI action which is not what the rule says at the NF level for any T.

Peace

Replace the shooting foul with a pushing foul on A5 after the shot is in flight with Team B, their 7th team foul.

1- Shoot the technical foul FTs against B4.
2- Resume play with the 1 & 1 for team B, not with team A getting the ball at the division line.

You don't penalize it differently because it's a false multiple foul than you would a false double foul. It makes no difference which team commits the foul in the two scenarios. Penalize in the order in which they occur.

The language is that penalties should be administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. 8.6.2 B and c gives us that language. as do plays in 4.19, 5.6.2 h. 6.4.1 f. The plays themselves aren't really relevant. Here the T happened first. penalize it first pursuant to the language quoted above. Then penalize the next foul. The only language is "penalize fouls in order they occurred." There is no language saying penalize the T last even though it happened first. (which is what we would be doing if we also gave A the ball back at the division line.)


In NCAA if there are multiple technicals during a dead ball and one is contact dead ball it is penalized last (even if it happened first). also, if there's a double foul in NCAA and one is flagrant play is resumed as if the flagrant is the only foul.

I am sorry, but unless you have a case play that suggests what you are saying, all that I read into this is you shoot in the order which is part of the administration. The T is a big penalty for a reason and unless I see something specific that suggests that "administering" is all about who gets the ball over a T, then I might go along with that position. I just do not agree that it is that cut and dry, but more so speculation with a very unusual situation that does not seem to be covered. I do not know many situations where you would have a T first followed by another action that has to be called but maybe this situation other than another technical foul. Most case plays use examples of clear one before the other and this is not exactly the case.

Again, I was not talking about NCAA because those are handled differently almost entirely. So I do not want to muddy the waters with NCAA rules at this time as even both of those codes handle some situations differently for some reason.

Peace

I certainly do agree that it would be rare to have a T and the ball remain live and then have a shooting foul on same team etc. I guess I just go back to the basic principles. penalize fouls in the order they occurred. That is really the only statement in the rules that might cover this at this time.

I only mentioned the NCAA rules because that is the only place i know (contact dead ball T) where you might not penalize fouls in the order they occurred.

We will agree to disagree on this one.

My only rub on this is that you give the ball at the end of a T to go to POI which you would be doing if we do it as you suggest (something the rule does not necessarily suggest either). Again, I think this is something that needs to be clarified by our state or the NF, because I still do not see anything that says you ignore the T portion of the penalty. Shooting in a specific order to me is not what I am discussing. Otherwise I will worry about it when it happens.

Peace

I am penalizing the fouls in the order they occurred. It just so happens that it looks like POI. I'm not using POI at all here. Agreed most of the time we will have a foul and then the T second. T would be shot last and the team would get the ball.

Anyway, not something ive ever had to administer and likely won't ever have to.

Me neither, but I also think that is why the question was asked. It has some contradictions to the administration.

Peace

I am going to jump in here real quick because Mark, Jr., and I have a baseball game later that afternoon.

I am siding with Nevada on this play. Another example is A1 is going in for what should be an uncontested fast break layup and B-HC drops an F-bomb on the official covering the play. We have an NFHS Casebook Play that states that this a DDB situation, in other words, let A1 go in for his layup and then come back and penalize B-HC. But lets add another piece to this play: B1 rushes down court and in an attempt to block A1's layup attempt, fouls A1 in the Act of Shooting. Which foul occurred first: B-HC's TF or B1's PF? We definitely have a FMF, which should be penalized in the order that they occurred.

MTD, Sr.

Penalize in the order they occurred.

Figured this would generate some discussion. :)


My response to the person who asked me about what should have been done...penalize in the order of occurrence.

That means you shoot the FTs for T, then you shoot the FTs for the shooting foul with the players on the lane and resume after those FTs as in any other shooting foul.

The subsequent personal foul eliminates the possession element of a T. This is not unlike a series of technical fouls that are not double fouls. All the FTs are shot, but possession at the end is determined by the last foul to have occurred. Alternately, this is not unlike a personal foul that occurs during the throwin for a T. The throwin is abandoned and the personal foul is penalized.

There is no need for a case play here, applying the penalties (in their entirety) in the order of occurrence is an NFHS rules fundamental.

But in this situation if you do what many have suggested, you have completely ignored part of the penalty part of the equation. Part of a Penalty of a T is who you give the ball to after a FT. You are not taking away FTs for the shooting foul in any way. You are still giving those FT, but the issue is are the players on the line or not.

Again I still feel this is just not an area covered in the rules that would need clarification by the higher ups. Because anytime you see in Rule 10 about penalties, they say that it involves the ball going to the division line. All you would be doing in this case is give the T and not give any other penalty portion of the foul.

Peace

It's covered. Look at Cameron's example. The throw in is not required to be given every time a T is called. Another example, T as time expires for 1st quarter. shoot the FTs but the throw in does not carry over to 2nd qtr. Fouls are penalized in the order they occur. In this OP the T happened first so those FTs are shot first. Then all players are on the line for the shooting foul. That is penalizing them in the order they occurred.

Frankly, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they said penalize the T last (even if it happened first as in OP) for reasons you've mentioned (Ts are deemed worse) but they havnt said it. The only thing they have said in rules is penalize all fouls in order they occurred. T is a foul. thx

If it is covered, then we have a reference directly speaking to this situation. There are many rules that have holes in them and we talk about on this site. This would not be the first rule that has this issue, nor the last. Cameron's example is also not official or coming from the body that created the rules. I am saying that this clearly is a whole in the rules and no one in the rules does it say to ignore a portion of the penalty in this or any case. And the situations is very unusual as there are other plays that even tell us to wait to call a T until the play has finished. So there are some contradictions here. And I stand by my position because I feel that giving the ball to the FT shooter of the foul last is not what is the purpose and intent of the rules.

The fundamental does not say, "Ignore the part of the penalty because it did not take place first...." The only issue IMO would be which order we shoot the FTs. But again, it is an interesting play and could change my position if I have more than "opinions" from random people on this topic. Right now we are just sharing our personal opinions. Great on some level, but might not be what those in power want or even care about honestly.

Peace

Not for nothing. I also agree with Rut's POV in addition to my earlier statement that was contradictory. In the end a T in HS awards the offended team the ball. There is clear direction on what would happen if another T was issued after the fact, but not so much for a common foul.

Also Nevada's previous example from post 6 is flawed in that the offended team was awarded the throw in and the ball was live. Nowhere is the expectation that they get unlimited attempts to complete the throw in for the T.

I think both applications are correct and I would be shocked if this happened in a sanctioned game and either method was rebuked (by anyone other than a coach of course). Both arguments are valid and I can see either being applicable.

Late to the party, but you have to administer the penalty for each foul in the same order in which the fouls occurred. The penalty for a technical foul is two FTs and throw-in opportunity at the division line. The subsequent shooting foul doesn't erase of supersede the penalty for the technical foul, it just comes next and the rules outline the procedure for resuming play following FTs for a personal foul. That procedure doesn't include returning to the penalty for another foul or awarding possession to either team because of a previous foul. I agree that possession is a big part of the penalty for a technical foul, but with regard to the enforcement of penalties for fouls, no preferential status is given to any type of foul over another in the rules. The only clearly stated guide for this situation is to penalize in the order the fouls occurred.

Nicely said.

And the rules cover this perfectly....order of occurrence. That covers everything. Unless an exception is stated, there is no reason to do otherwise.

The throwin after the T isn't so much part of the penalty but the method of resuming play after the T. However, if there is another penalty to be administered, you don't resume play but move on to that penalty. Just like any other infraction.

Example: The penalty for traveling, OOB, etc. is a throwin for he other team. But, if a foul occurs before that throwin is started, you skip the throwin for the traveling and move onto the foul.

Why would it be any different for two fouls?

The fundamental point of this situation is that technicals are no different than other fouls regarding the order of penalty enforcement. When there is a sequence of infractions (violations or fouls, personal or technical), the last one to occur determines how play is ultimately resumed.

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.

msu.

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.

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

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.

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..

[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.

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.

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.

Wow, we are really sensitive about this I see. :rolleyes:

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

Ah, the Jeff we all know and love. :rolleyes:

Before I read through all the responses:

1. Shoot the T with the lane cleared.

2. Line them up and shoot the FTs for the shooting foul.

Resume from the 2nd set of FTs as if there was no T.

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.

Again, get me and everyone an "official word" to the issue and then we can agree or disagree on the merits. But you cannot do that, because as I suspected you drew your own conclusion before you had other information obviously. That is how you operate and that is your right, but it does not change my stance one bit. You live and work where you do and I will live and work where I do. I think we have both done alright doing what we do, I know I have. ;)

Otherwise, stop trying to tell the world what is "right" on an issue that is not discussed at all under any interpretation or any NF publication. When you find it, let us all know. I will be waiting patiently. ;)

Peace

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.

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.

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

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

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.

This thread has generated quite a bit of discussion. There have been a number of posts since my original post (see above) confirming what NevadaRef and I have already stated. Someone even went to the trouble of looking up the Casebook Play which I mentioned in my post. There have also been several examples given where penalties for a given infraction do not carry over to a new quarter, half, or overtime period. These are examples that led themselves to defending Nevada and my position: Penalize the fouls in the order in which they occurred. It is not rocket science.

MTD, Sr.

You are not penalizing one of the fouls, at least not in total. That is the problem and why this needs clarity. Until then we are assuming what is wanted when only one kind of situation is discussed in the casebook.

Peace

In the absence of a case book situation to provide clarity to this discussion, the rule book is left as the only authority on the matter. Until someone can point to a case book situation that clearly alters the principle that fouls are penalized in the order of occurrence, the rule book's directive is the authority. Even the case book situation that allows for withholding the whistle does not provide a means for altering this principle. Admittedly it doesn't include the addition of another foul, but in the absence of that, we again return to the rule book.

On another note, there are some contending the likelihood of seeing this exact scenario play out is minimal and I agree with that point. The more likely scenario for this type of situation to occur is a player begins the shooting motion and a player or coach from the opposing team uses profanity prior to the shooter being fouled. I see this situation being analogous and much more likely.

Go back to the NFHS Casebook Play: A1 is driving in for an contested layup and before A1 is in the Act of Shooting B-HC commits and Unsportsmanlike TF. The NFHS CB Ruling is to treat B-HC's infraction as a DDB and wait to A1's FGA has left his/her hand before stopping further play. But lets add something extra to that NFHS CB Play: B1 hustles down the court in an effort to keep A1 from scoring, and after B-HC has committed his TF, B1 fouls A1 in the Act of Shooting. We have a FMF. FMFs are penalized in the order in which they are committed with the ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence is the only foul that was committed. B1's PF was the last foul in the FMF sequence.

MTD, Sr.

What casebook play? Reference?

Peace

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

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.

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

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.

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...

From the 2015-16 NFHS Casebook: Casebook Play 10.4.1, Situation F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle this situation. RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess Team B head coach or bench personnel with at technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be ejected. If A' coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (R1-S4-A1a)

MTD, Sr.

Thanks I just wanted to know what play I was using for this discussion.

Peace

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

You're welcome. I am not going to climb up into the attic to check, but I am pretty sure that that CB Play has been around for far too many years that I care to remember.

MTD, Sr.

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

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.

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.

OK tough guy. LOL!!!!

Peace

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

Assuming you're talking about the BC violation scenario, the difference is we can cite the rules and case plays that are in conflict with each other.

In this case, you've offering absolutely nothing in the rules or interpretations that support your contention. You just keep posting that we have ignored part of the penalty part of the equation, even though it's been shown that the ball is not always awarded in false foul situations.

But keep right on pushing the wrong ruling. We who have been here for years are used to you being wrong, and refusing to admit.

Done with this.

Tony:

Give it a rest. Rut, asked me for the Casebook Play and I provided it and he accepted it.

MTD, Sr.

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.

Tony was looking for agreement and acceptance of the position. That is not going to happen unless someone can provide me the information from the NF that says that was their intent or not intent. Until then, I stand my my concern.

Peace

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

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

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