Foul, then double technical
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WlrzC9xuTv8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

NCAA Men's basketball rules. Following a foul on Norfolk St (Green), a double technical foul is called on a player from each team for taunting. Coppin (yellow) is in the double bonus. The fouled player from Coppin shoots two free throws with the lane cleared. Then, the officials go to the possession arrow to determine possession. Norfolk St has the arrow and gets possession and inbounds the ball from the division line. Was all this administered correctly?

Point of interruption should have been the loose ball foul against Norfolk State. So Coppin State should have shot their free throws with players along the line.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Zero chance that this was administered correctly. Sad.

Yeah, as I’m watching this, I keep thinking, “the hell?”

POI is a simple concept often overthought in the heat of the moment. But a D1 game? Not a good look.

In fairness, if they realized after the throws that players should have been in the lane, then the arrow is the right way to resolve the fact that there wasn’t a proper rebounding opportunity. But even then, the spot should NOT have been at the division line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they realized after the free throws that they should have went to point of interruption, then Norfolk State should take the ball out anywhere along did end line if the second free throw was made. If the second free throw was missed, then I would go to the AP arrow with a throw-in nearest the spot of the original loose ball foul.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Good point about had the final FT been successful. Not sure I agree with the arrow spot had it not been, however. If the rebounding that wasn’t permitted to occur would have taken place near the end line, why wouldn’t that be the spot?

There's no guarantee that possession occurs within the paint following a missed free throw. If my crew screws up and we need to go to the AP in order to resume play, then I'm going to the ball location before everything got messed up.

But if anybody has a ruling or case play that's on point, I'm easily swayed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If FT is missed (no obvious point of interruption) the AP throwin then goes closest place ball located. End line spot throw in. There are cases in correctable error and FT sections. NFHS at least. 2.10.1e. College would seem be same.

Agree. I going nearest the location of the ball when the ball became dead after the final FT....which is on the endline.

Foul, then double technical
 

That’s what I was thinking. Because the location of the original foul (first part of the false double) really bears no connection to the fact that the ball became dead following a free throw when it wasn’t supposed to due to an officials’ error. That entails that the location of the error and where the ball became dead at that point matters, which has nothing to do with any foul location.

Great discussion. This is two POI incidences within the same stopped clock interval. That’s what makes it weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk