End of quarter - "All related activity"

[Altor]

V4 is called for a PC foul as time expires in 2Q. As T is reporting the foul to the table, V3 says something as he passes the official on his way to the bench that earns him a TF.

Is the reporting of the foul considered to be a part of "all related activity" in 5-6-2 Exception 3? My instincts say no. Since no FTs would be shot as part of a PC foul, the quarter ended when the clock expired. The TF is penalized to start 3Q.

[ilyazhito]

That is an interesting question, because if it were the 4th quarter, and there was a difference in the score close enough where the free throws would matter (anything between a 2-point visitor lead to a tie game), the free throws would be shot as part of the 4th quarter. Since it is the 2nd quarter, there is no legal resumption of play for the player control foul possible in the 2nd quarter. However, as the officials were still on the court reporting the foul, the penalty for the technical foul can and will be assessed. Since intermission had not yet started when the technical foul was committed, the offender was not bench personnel, and so the coach will not be required to sit. By rule, I would start the clock for the intermission, shoot the free throws during the intermission, set the arrow the correct way, and award the ball to B to start the 3rd quarter, regardless of the arrow, because of the technical foul penalty.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

By rule, I would start the clock for the intermission, shoot the free throws during the intermission, set the arrow the correct way, and award the ball to B to start the 3rd quarter, regardless of the arrow, because of the technical foul penalty.

That's clearly wrong.

The only options are:

A) Shoot the FTs for the T as part of the second quarter, start the clock when the FTs are done, leave the arrow with the current team and start the third quarter with an AP throw-in.

B) Start the intermission, leave the arrow with the same team, start the third quarter with the FTs for the T and the throw-in as part of the T penalty.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Start the intermission, leave the arrow with the same team, start the third quarter with the FTs for the T and the throw-in as part of the T penalty.

Agree. I think that the intermission started, and players became bench personnel, when ball became dead with the player control foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's clearly wrong.

The only options are:

A) Shoot the FTs for the T as part of the second quarter, start the clock when the FTs are done, leave the arrow with the current team and start the third quarter with an AP throw-in.

B) Start the intermission, leave the arrow with the same team, start the third quarter with the FTs for the T and the throw-in as part of the T penalty.

Bob:

I would go with Option "B". Reporting the PCF is just bookkeeping duties on the part of the covering Official.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is an interesting question ....

It certainly is. Just when we think that we've exhausted all possible scenarios, something new like this pops up.

Thanks Altor.

We couldn't even listen to bob, he couldn't make up his mind.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

By rule, I would start the clock for the intermission, shoot the free throws during the intermission, set the arrow the correct way, and award the ball to B to start the 3rd quarter, regardless of the arrow, because of the technical foul penalty.

Have you've done this (in NFHS rules), ilyazhito? Run the intermission clock while shooting free throw(s)? Did the teams stick around or go off to their locker room?

Also, since I know won't be able to find this rule (or case book play), would you please share it here?

[Matt S.]

I've assessed a technical foul at halftime after a coach persistently argued about something that happened moments prior. The other team was already off the floor. They came back to a welcome surprise to start the 3rd period (2 FTs and the ball).

That's how I would administrate any T that occurs after the expiration of playing time during the first half.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

I've assessed a technical foul at halftime after a coach persistently argued about something that happened moments prior. The other team was already off the floor. They came back to a welcome surprise to start the 3rd period (2 FTs and the ball).

That's how I would administrate any T that occurs after the expiration of playing time during the first half.

Which is, of course, 5-6-2 Exception 4:

If a technical foul occurs after the ball becomes dead to end a quarter or extra period, the next quarter or extra period is started by administering the free throws. If the fourth quarter or extra period ends and the score is tied, the free throws will start the extra period. If the score is not tied and the results of the free throws would tie or win the game, the free throws are administered as part of the preceding quarter/period.

I gotcha covered on this one, BillyMac!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

That's how I would administrate any T that occurs after the expiration of playing time during the first half.

Be careful.

If a foul is called at the exact time of the period ending buzzer, and if free throws are to be awarded (with no rebounders on the lane) those free throws would still be a part of that period, and any technical foul charged during those free throws would also be part of that period, even though "playing time" had expired. It's all a part of "related activity". Once the final technical foul free throw is made, or misses, and the ball becomes dead, the intermission has then finally started.

Technical foul before intermission. Technical foul free throws are part of that period. Next period starts with the alternating possession arrow and switch arrow as one normally would. If technical foul charged to player, no indirect technical foul to head coach.

Technical foul during intermission. Technical foul free throws are part of the next period. After technical foul free throws, period starts with offended team getting the ball at division line opposite the table (don't switch arrow). Technical foul charged to team member would be bench personnel and an indirect technical foul to head coach, who takes a seat (best seat in the house, people pay big bucks for floor court side seats).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Be careful. If a foul is called at the exact time of the period ending buzzer, and if free throws are to be awarded (with no rebounders on the lane) those free throws would still be a part of that period, and any technical foul charged during those free throws would also be part of that period, even though "playing time" had expired. It's all a part of "related activity". Once the final free throw is made, or misses, and the ball becomes dead, the intermission has then finally started.

In this case it was a PC foul with no possibility of free throws. So when did the quarter end, with the horn or after the foul is reported?

[crosscountry55]

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane.

And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired.

What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane. And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired. What’s the difference?

No procedure to add 0.3 seconds per NFHS rules, except with definite knowledge (of any amount of time), and with that there's nothing "magical" about 0.3 (except a tap not a catch and shoot).

I have absolutely no qualms about putting a shooter on the line with 0:00 and a buzzer (no rebounders) if I was sure that the foul happened before, or at, the horn. 0.3 would have never entered my mind.

Not sure about other rule sets (NBA, WNBA, NCAAM, NCAAW, FIBA)

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane.

And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired.

What’s the difference?

Pure [speculation] here: those of us who remember "lag time" did not seem to have much of an issue adjusting to "definite knowledge" when it replaced "lag time" even though 5-6-2 Exception 3 still begins with, "If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires..."

Either that or it's 'contamination' from collegiate rules where they are allowed to put time back after video review under certain conditions. [/speculation]

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Pure [speculation] here: those of us who remember "lag time" did not seem to have much of an issue adjusting to "definite knowledge" when it replaced "lag time" even though 5-6-2 Exception 3 still begins with, "If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires..."

Either that or it's 'contamination' from collegiate rules where they are allowed to put time back after video review under certain conditions. [/speculation]

"Definite Knowlege" existed with "Lag Time". The "Lag Time" provision just limited "Definite Knowledge" corrections to be no less than 1.0 seconds.