Faking Being Fouled Rule ...

[BillyMac]

We had our local IAABO new NFHS rules meeting last night.

We spent thirty minutes alone on all the permutations of the new faking being fouled rule, warnings and technical fouls, faking by offensive players and defensive players, signals, whistles, and delayed whistles.

Our local interpreter (also the Connecticut State interpreter) mentioned a very odd situation where a team on offense could actually gain an advantage by faking being fouled.

Team A has not been warned in the game for faking being fouled. Team A has the alternating possession arrow. Team A has the ball. Team A is leading by one point very late in the game. Thirty-five second shot clock is winding down.

A1, after releasing a jump shot, intentionally fakes being fouled. Official sounds his whistle and signals an open hand to stop the clock and the faking being fouled signal.

Ball hits the rim and bounces off the rim.

Official reports that Team A faked being fouled to the table and a warning is issued.

No team control on the attempted shot, so go to the alternating possession arrow. Team A gets the ball.

Since the ball hit the rim, Team A also gets a full thirty-five seconds on the shot clock.

Our interpreter told that the NFHS is aware of this odd situation, they believe that coaches are smart enough to take advantage of this situation, and will issue an interpretation regarding such in early December.

[BillyMac]

A long time ago in a galaxy not so far, far away a few officials decided that it was deceitful and unsporting for players to fake being fouled so they decided to make the act a player technical foul.

However, over the many years, officials across the galaxy unilaterally decided that the penalty was too severe so they never actually charged the technical foul, but would occasionally give a player an unofficial oral warning.

Many basketball aficionados have never observed the technical foul being charged in decades of playing, coaching, observing, or officiating basketball games.

Fast forward to modern times and a few officials got together over a few beers at the Mos Eisley Cantina and decided to make the penalty less severe, give an official warning first, and make it a team technical foul.

Maybe by making the penalty less severe it may be called more often?

Sounds simple. Sounds great. Right?

Until one gets down to the brass tacks and dives into the weeds and down the rabbit hole.

Lots of permutations in applying the new rule and penalty. Warnings and technical fouls. Faking by offensive players and defensive players. Signals, whistles, and delayed whistles.

Penalties not administered in the order in which they occurred (is this a NFHS first).

We spent thirty minutes on this rule change alone at last night’s local new rules meeting.

Is it all worth it?

Couldn’t the NFHS have just kept the old faking being fouled rule and made it a point of emphasis; encouraging officials actually call it in a game?

Wouldn’t one, or two, faking being fouled player technical fouls at the beginning of a season put an end to all of this foolishness?

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...Penalties not administered in the order in which they occurred (is this a NFHS first)...

We spent thirty minutes on this rule.

You've seen this in writing in NFHS - penalties not administered in the order they occurred (Fundamental 12) - dissimilar to what follows?

= = =

This was the situation and administration in Play 5 from an IAABO presentation on Technical Fouls today:

Team B is warned for Faking Being Fouled in the first quarter. Later in the game, A-1 releases the ball during a try for goal and defender B-2 fakes being fouled.

The ruling official withholds a whistle and displays the signal for faking being fouled. A-1's try is unsuccessful. A-3 secures the rebound and is fouled by B-4 while in the act of shooting.

Ruling: Officials award A-3 two free throws with no players lined up for the foul by B-4 while A-3 was in the act of shooting. Team A is then awarded two free throws for the second infraction of the faking-being-fouled rule and Team A is awarded the ball at the division line for the ensuing throw-in. Is this correct? YES!

Officials should display the faking-being-fouled signal and withhold their whistle when a defender fakes being fouled. The offensive team is allowed to complete their attempt to score and then play should be stopped. In this case, play was stopped when A-3 was fouled in the act of shooting. In situations similar to this, first penalize the foul that caused play to be stopped (foul in the act of shooting) [emphasis added].

Because the ball will remain dead, no players line up for the foul-in-the-act-of-shooting free throws and no players line up for free throws resulting from the technical foul due to Team B's second infraction of the faking-being-fouled rule. Continue play by awarding the ball to Team A for a division-line throw-in.

= = =

Even though B-2's faking being fouled takes place before the foul by B-4, once play is stopped, the personal foul gets reported to the scorer first and then the faking being fouled gets reported. Once confirmed by the scorer as a subsequent offense, Team B is assessed a Team Technical Foul, which has then 'occurred' after the personal foul was assessed.

[Valley Man]

I mentioned the potential advantage when it first came out

Team A has the AP arrow. Down 3 and A2 attempts a game tying 3 and fakes being fouled. Attempt is good .. warning. Attempt is missed Team A gets the ball back????

[FlasherZ]

I think I said the same (forget which forum)... so I think it's pretty clear coaches will be trying to use it if many of us see it.