Penalty Administration????

[Camron Rust]

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You shoot the shooting FTs first and then the T second, all in the order this occurred.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

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

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

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[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.