![]() |
|
|
|||
If this was high school basketball under rule 4-19-art 7 b:
a double technical foul ....... NOTE:No free throws are awarded and the ball is put in play by the team entitled to the throw in under the alternating-possession procedure at the divsion line opposite the table I may be missing somethnig here but isnt that what you had? |
|
||||
Quote:
If the T's negate offset, then we're shooting for 1 T and 1 Flagrant Personal. Who gets the ball then? Arrow? [Edited by Snaqwells on Feb 16th, 2004 at 04:32 PM] |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Snaqwells, I would think that they happened far enough apart that they are not a double technical. A double foul has to be by opponents and directed toward each other. So both in space, and time, you have a false double here. You shoot the shots in the order the fouls occurred. The H player that took the flagrant personal shoots whatever shots he gets, then V shoots four by any player, then H shoots two by any player and gets the ball at the division line.
And if I got that all correct, I get some kind of trophy! Okay, someone beat me to it, and got it right-er than me. Why do I even keep trying!? |
|
||||
Quote:
Thanks, also, for answering the question about whether the last flagrant T should offset one of the earlier T's on either H22 or H42. Thanks, too, to Juulie. |
|
|||
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE] We ended up ruling that H22's reaction was late enough to call it a dead ball foul. However, looking back, I could see going your route would have made it simpler. [/B][/QUOTE]Your other option would have been to call the original foul by V32 a flagrant technical foul instead of a flagrant personal foul. You can do that under Rule 10-3-9, even though the ball was live when V32 started the fight. H22 responded to V32, so his flagrant technical foul was part of the same action/fight- i.e. you still end up having a double technical foul, made up of 2 flagrant T's(R4-19-7b + NOTE), followed by the false double foul comprised of two different flagrant T's. Still make sense? |
|
||||
Quote:
[/B][/QUOTE]Your other option would have been to call the original foul by V32 a flagrant technical foul instead of a flagrant personal foul. You can do that under Rule 10-3-9, even though the ball was live when V32 started the fight. H22 responded to V32, so his flagrant technical foul was part of the same action/fight- i.e. you still end up having a double technical foul, made up of 2 flagrant T's(R4-19-7b + NOTE), followed by the false double foul comprised of two different flagrant T's. Still make sense? [/B][/QUOTE] Very much so. I hope I never have to deal with this again, but I don't want to get caught with my pants down again. I still need to see the tape, though. I can't help but think there's something I could have done to prevent it all in the first place. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|