Brain fart on free throw followed by tech

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I'm not sure that we handled this correctly, but it was last night's wreck league so I was not too worried about it, just want to make sure I get it right in the future if I'm not officiating a game of former JV hacks.

A1 goes in for layup, B1 slides under him while A1 in air, basket good & blocking foul on B1. While getting ready to shoot the throw, B1 asks me what he did, and I told him he slid under the shooter to which he replies "that's f***ing bulls***." Tweet, whack. We cleared the lanes, and shot 2 for the original foul (both of which A1 made). That's when it hit me that we should have only shot one since the try was good. We got together and counted the second made shot on the second throw and gave them the opportunity to change shooters, which they did not, then shot the 3rd free throw, or what should have been the second of the T shots. My question is should this happen in the future, is there a better way to handle this other than not falling asleep on number of free throws for each foul?

While, I admire your ingenuity, by rule, the second FT must be disallowed and two FTs for the TF shot .

MTD, Sr.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

While, I admire your ingenuity, by rule, the second FT must be disallowed and two FTs for the TF shot .

MTD, Sr.

That's what I was afraid I should have done. Oh well, thanks for the help.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

While, I admire your ingenuity, by rule, the second FT must be disallowed and two FTs for the TF shot .

MTD, Sr.

I don't have my rule/case book with me at the moment, but what is the reference for this? I'm not doubting the correct administration, but playing devil's advocate, it doesn't seem to (technically) meet the correctable error rule.

It was not an unmerited FT (The team was entitled to 3 FTs and only 3 were ultimately awarded).

A wrong player was not permitted to attempt the FT (player 1 is entitled to shoot FT #2 and #3).

Failing to ask the coach who his shooter is for the TF and announcing 4 FTs instead of 3 FTs initially are both officials errors, not correctable errors, right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

It was not an unmerited FT (The team was entitled to 3 FTs and only 3 were ultimately awarded).

Mathematically, you are correct. But, it wasn't *really* three FTs -- it was 1 FT and then 2 more FTs.

So, when they shot 2 FTs for the first foul -- the second was unmerited.

[HokiePaul]

So in administering the first free throw, do you indicate "one" knowing that there will be 2 technical FTs after. Or do you indicate "three", indicating that this is the first of 3 total FTs that will be shot.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

So in administering the first free throw, do you indicate "one" knowing that there will be 2 technical FTs after. Or do you indicate "three", indicating that this is the first of 3 total FTs that will be shot.

You should indicate ONE. Then, after that one is completed, indicate TWO shots for the T, and I'll usually inquire if the same shooter is shooting them, or if someone else is.