Double T, shoot free throws?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

So, you think they adjudicated it as a false double foul?

No. Both were dead ball acts. But a double foul is seen at approximately the same time. If there is a delay or enough of one, they could be two separate acts. That is the only way you shoot the free throws. Also when they put it at the division line, that is kind of a tell it was not a double foul when the acts took place on the end line. Maybe they just screwed it up, but they would have had to make that mistake on several fronts, not just one way.

Peace

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No. Both were dead ball acts. But a double foul is seen at approximately the same time. If there is a delay or enough of one, they could be two separate acts. That is the only way you shoot the free throws. Also when they put it at the division line, that is kind of a tell it was not a double foul when the acts took place on the end line. Maybe they just screwed it up, but they would have had to make that mistake on several fronts, not just one way.

Peace

I said it looks like it was called a "false" double foul, I.e., two separate acts. So, I think we're in agreement with how they administered it. Except, I can't figure out why the ball was inbounded at the division line. And, since neither was flagrant, I can't figure out why they didn't go to POI.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I said it looks like it was called a "false" double foul, I.e., two separate acts. So, I think we're in agreement with how they administered it. Except, I can't figure out why the ball was inbounded at the division line. And, since neither was flagrant, I can't figure out why they didn't go to POI.

As I've already posted, the rule book is wrong. A bulletin was sent out in regards to CDBT and Flagrant fouls. The throw-in was put in at the division line by mistake, as that used to be the throw-in spot for CDBT.

Bottom-line, if there is a Flagrant technical foul or CDBT technical foul involved, the offended team gets a throw-in at a designated spot. It is not administered as POI.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by Raymond

As I've already posted, the rule book is wrong. A bulletin was sent out in regards to CDBT and Flagrant fouls. The throw-in was put in at the division line by mistake, as that used to be the throw-in spot for CDBT.

Bottom-line, if there is a Flagrant technical foul or CDBT technical foul involved, the offended team gets a throw-in at a designated spot. It is not administered as POI.

The bulletin that I read seemed to make it clear that this is correct rule to apply:

h. When a double technical foul or any simultaneous foul occurs during
a stopped-clock period, all fouls shall be charged but no free throws
shall be awarded if the penalties are equal. Only the number of free
throws awarded shall be used to determine if the penalties are equal. If
the penalties are not equal, all free throws shall be administered. The
game shall resume at the point of interruption using the procedures
in Rule 7-3.2 unless one team has been awarded possession of the ball
as part of a penalty.

Case Book Correction to A.R. 130 – Rewrite of Ruling – “When the technical fouls assessed against A1 and B1 occur during the same dead ball period, the technical fouls are charged but no free throws are awarded."

I think the correct ruling is no free throws, Norfolk Ball on the endline. But, like Raymond said the rule book is contradictory in places. There is a Foul/Penalty chart on page 113, that says on a double technical (live or dead), you don't shoot free throws unless one of the fouls is a flagrant 2. TBH, that is what I was looking at initially in the OP when I pointed out no one was ejected, and wondering why free throws were shot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

The bulletin that I read seemed to make it clear that this is correct rule to apply:



h. When a double technical foul or any simultaneous foul occurs during

a stopped-clock period, all fouls shall be charged but no free throws

shall be awarded if the penalties are equal. Only the number of free

throws awarded shall be used to determine if the penalties are equal. If

the penalties are not equal, all free throws shall be administered. The

game shall resume at the point of interruption using the procedures

in Rule 7-3.2 unless one team has been awarded possession of the ball

as part of a penalty.



Case Book Correction to A.R. 130 – Rewrite of Ruling – “When the technical fouls assessed against A1 and B1 occur during the same dead ball period, the technical fouls are charged but no free throws are awarded."



I think the correct ruling is no free throws, Norfolk Ball on the endline. But, like Raymond said the rule book is contradictory in places. There is a Foul/Penalty chart on page 113, that says on a double technical (live or dead), you don't shoot free throws unless one of the fouls is a flagrant 2. TBH, that is what I was looking at initially in the OP when I pointed out no one was ejected, and wondering why free throws were shot.

The NCAA Men's rules committee frequently makes editing errors that are eventually caught by officials. It was pointed out by us officials in February that the throw-in spot was incorrect for double fouls. The rules committee didn't even realize it was wrong until they sent out a bulletin about double fouls and a bunch of officials like me emailed them to say the throw-in spot was incorrect and wondering why the rule had been changed. Turned out the wording in the book was wrong.

The exception for CDBT technical fouls I referenced is actually under the Class A technical foul penalty paragraph in the rule book. I'm going with the penalty enforcement that is directly tied to the Class A Technical Foul rule over inconsistencies found under Scoring and Timing, Throw-ins, or Personal Fouls. I chalk it up to sloppiness by Art Hyland's editing team

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I said it looks like it was called a "false" double foul, I.e., two separate acts. So, I think we're in agreement with how they administered it. Except, I can't figure out why the ball was inbounded at the division line. And, since neither was flagrant, I can't figure out why they didn't go to POI.

A false double foul is when one of the fouls is live and the next foul is dead. That did not happen here. It is just two different Ts, that is it.

Also, dead ball contact fouls used to be opposite the table and at the division line. I think the officials just got a little confused there. That again is the only reason I can make out for where the throw-in took place.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

These were 2 different acts with 2 different penalties. Contact dead ball technical fouls do not follow the normal rules of putting the ball in play from the point of interruption. Rather, the offended team receives the ball at one of four spots in the frontcourt per Rule 7-3.2. The officials were following the old rule about ball placement on a contact dead ball technical foul. I get that it might not be discussed in pre-game, because it is an atypical situation, but I would expect NCAA tournament officials to put the ball in at the right spot.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

These were 2 different acts with 2 different penalties. Contact dead ball technical fouls do not follow the normal rules of putting the ball in play from the point of interruption. Rather, the offended team receives the ball at one of four spots in the frontcourt per Rule 7-3.2. The officials were following the old rule about ball placement on a contact dead ball technical foul. I get that it might not be discussed in pre-game, because it is an atypical situation, but I would expect NCAA tournament officials to put the ball in at the right spot.

The four spots would apply if it were a front court throw-in. If it's a back court throw-in, it goes to a designated spot closest to where the infraction took place.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The four spots would apply if it were a front court throw-in. If it's a back court throw-in, it goes to a designated spot closest to where the infraction took place.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

AFAIK, the stoppage of play for the technical fouls was in Coppin State's backcourt (Norfolk State's frontcourt). A Norfolk State player mouthed off to a Coppin State player right after he scored, followed by the Coppin State player pushing him. Thus, Norfolk State would get the ball at the nearest spot to the infraction (in the frontcourt) following the free throws, and thus the 4 spots would apply.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

AFAIK, the stoppage of play for the technical fouls was in Coppin State's backcourt (Norfolk State's frontcourt). A Norfolk State player mouthed off to a Coppin State player right after he scored, followed by the Coppin State player pushing him. Thus, Norfolk State would get the ball at the nearest spot to the infraction (in the frontcourt) following the free throws, and thus the 4 spots would apply.

With all due respect, watch it again. Norfolk State blocked the ball out of bounds under Coppin's basket.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

AFAIK, the stoppage of play for the technical fouls was in Coppin State's backcourt (Norfolk State's frontcourt). A Norfolk State player mouthed off to a Coppin State player right after he scored, followed by the Coppin State player pushing him. Thus, Norfolk State would get the ball at the nearest spot to the infraction (in the frontcourt) following the free throws, and thus the 4 spots would apply.

It was after NSU blocked a CSU shot. Video is in the first post. You know I'm detail oriented.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A false double foul is when one of the fouls is live and the next foul is dead.

While that may be true for college rules, for those high school officials trying to compare/contrast as they follow this thread, JRutledge's definition is not true for a high school false double fouls, where live ball/dead ball may not impact the definition.

A high school false double foul may involve a live ball foul followed by a dead ball foul, or it may involve two dead ball fouls. For example, technical foul on Red player, lets say for taunting, but after reporting, before White shoots the technical foul free throws (clock hasn't started), there is a technical foul charged to White player for profanity. False double (high school) foul, shot in the order that they occurred. Each foul carries its own penalties, for example, if the White profanity technical foul was considered flagrant, in addition for two free throws for Red, the White player would be disqualified. Following all free throws, ball to Red at (high school) division line.

NFHS 4-19-9: A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While that may be true for college rules, for those high school officials trying to compare/contrast as they follow this thread, JRutledge's definition is not true for a high school false double fouls, where live ball/dead ball may not impact the definition.

A high school false double foul may involve a live ball foul followed by a dead ball foul, or it may involve two dead ball fouls. For example, technical foul on Red player, lets say for taunting, while White is shooting the technical foul free throws (clock hasn't started), there is a technical foul charged to White player for profanity. False double (high school) foul, shot in the order that they occurred. Following all free throws, ball to Red at (high school) division line.

NFHS 4-19-9: A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

First of all you do not call a false double foul. Those just happen based on the the actions you have ruled. So let us stop saying they called a false double foul, because if you have two different acts they are simply not a POI application as a double foul would be normally. And a dead ball contact technical at the NCAA level has a totally different penalty. Unless you call both plays a dead ball contact technical, then you would not go to POI on those situations.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all you do not call a false double foul. Those just happen based on the the actions you have ruled.

Never stated that a false double foul was "called" (there is no false double foul signal). But like JRutledge stated (paraphrased), it is what it is. If I had to explain the chain of (high school) events to a coach, or to my assigner, I would definitely use the phrase "false double foul", "Coaches, what we have here is a false double foul, so we're going to ... yada, yada, yada". As Casey Stengel said, "You can look it up".

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And a dead ball contact technical at the NCAA level has a totally different penalty. Unless you call both plays a dead ball contact technical, then you would not go to POI on those situations.

Can't argue with that, JRutledge is a college guy, I'm certainly not.

And neither of my high school fouls example involved contact, sorry if I confused anybody.

Let's say that the profanity didn't happen, but was a unilateral dead ball flagrant punch.

Still, by rule, a high school false double foul.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A false double foul is when one of the fouls is live and the next foul is dead.

Still say that JRutledge's definition of a false double foul (for high school only) is only partially correct, yes, it can be a live ball foul followed by a dead ball foul, but it can be two dead ball fouls (not at the same time) as well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never stated that a false double foul was "called". But like JRutledge stated (paraphrased), it is what it is. If I had to explain the chain of (high school) events to a coach, or to my assigner, I would definitely use the phrase "false double foul", "Coaches, what we have here is a false double foul, so we're going to ... yada, yada, yada". As Casey Stengel said, "You can look it up".



Can't argue with that, JRutledge is a college guy, I'm certainly not.

And neither of my high school fouls example involved contact, sorry if I confused anybody.

Let's say that the profanity didn't happen, but was a unilateral dead ball flagrant punch.

Still, by rule, a high school false double foul.



Still say that JRutledge's definition of a false double foul (for high school only) is only partially correct, yes, it can be a live ball foul followed by a dead ball foul, but it can be two dead ball fouls (not at the same time) as well.

It was said by someone else that they called a false double foul. They called a T that then led to dead ball contact foul. Again DBCF has a totally separate penalty, so you cannot just couple that with other Ts that are not related. And if they called a Flagrant foul, they cannot do that as well.

I was not speaking on the behalf of high school not once in this topic. So please stop making this about high school because that has totally different penalties or results.

Peace