After buzzer 2d quarter tech on assistant coach. Ref adminsters two shots prior to leaving gym for half time.
They come back to start 2d half take away both points readminister shots and ball out of bounds. Since these free throws merited do they need to be reshot?

There was no reason to re-shoot the FTs. The shots were merited. It's no different than a situation where a foul occurs that results in FTs, followed by a T. If the FTs are shot in the wrong order, it's of no consequence. Continue with the ball to the offended team.

Shooting the free throws in the wrong quarter is not a correctable error. The timing of when the free throws are awarded is not important, only that they were awarded. The logic of this is backed by what Tony wrote above about shooting free throws in the wrong order. The FED has decided that free throws given at an incorrect time are not considered unmeritted.

It does make me think about the possession to start the 3rd Quarter, though.
If it had been done correctly, the offended team would receive the ball as part of the penalty on the T. But since the free throws were shot before the halftime intermission, and we know that no part of a penalty can carry over from one quarter to the next, I believe that the AP arrow now has to be used to start the 3rd Q.

The determining factor here is that you shot before the 10 minute intermission. The rules book tells us that this intermission takes place between halves (5-5-1), so because the free throws were shot before this intermission they clearly have to be considered part of the first half.
Hence, you are stuck going to the arrow to start the 2nd half.

As much as I would hate taking the ball from the offended team and going to the arrow, I have to agree with Nevedaref. I too think you must go to the arrow to start the second half. I'm trying to think of a way to avoid going to the arrow, but can't find anything within the context of the rules. My only question is what could the offended team have done to prevent shooting the FT's prior to the half. My guess is the refs thought they were in the right until the checked their books at intermission, so refusing to shoot could have caused some problems. Also as this isn't a correctable error using a TO probably wouldn't have done anything but cost you a TO.

No way, guys. The penalty for a technical includes possession in the NFHS. You don't disregard that simply b/c the first part of the penalty was administered incorrectly.

You're not carrying the penalty from one period to the next. Once the horn sounded, the 2nd quarter was over. So no part of the penalty was administered in the 2nd quarter. The intermission is not the same as the 2nd quarter, so the T is considered to be part of the 3rd quarter. So you award possession to the offended team, w/o going to the arrow.

Use Tony's example. Say you have a shooting foul followed by a T. The official accidentally shoots the FTs for the T first. (College official who never studies rules differences ;) ) When they realize that they messed it up, should they let the ball stay live after the FTs for the personal? No, you still award possession, b/c it's part of the penalty for the T; even tho they messed up the first part of the penalty.

As always, just my opinion.

No way, guys. The penalty for a technical includes possession in the NFHS. You don't disregard that simply b/c the first part of the penalty was administered incorrectly.

You're not carrying the penalty from one period to the next. Once the horn sounded, the 2nd quarter was over. So no part of the penalty was administered in the 2nd quarter. The intermission is not the same as the 2nd quarter, so the T is considered to be part of the 3rd quarter. So you award possession to the offended team, w/o going to the arrow.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree with Chuck. According to rule 5-6-3, the restriction mentioned by Nevada above that "no part of a penalty carries over from one quarter to the next" ONLY applies to fouls that occur before the timer can stop the clock and the period ends, or fouls that occur after time expires but the ball is still alive. Ergo, this article isn't pertinent or applicable at all in this particular case. R5-6-4 is the applicable rule. Under this rule, the officials may have screwed up part of the timing of the FT's by administering them early, but they don't have any rules justification to compound that error by changing the possession part of the technical foul penalty.

First off, is there a case play regarding the issue of shooting T FT's then bonus FT's (i.e., out of order) and not having to re-do them?

I agree with Chuck here. We're not splitting the penalty, and not having a part carry over from one period to the next. The free throws were shot early, but that doesn't mean that the offended team should be penalized by our mistake.

I don't think so, Mark, but what would be the rule basis for re-shooting them? They weren't unmerited; they weren't shot by the wrong player. . . They were just shot in the wrong order.

I don't think there's any basis for re-shooting them, either. I once made the argument of "unmerited free-throws" to do a re-shoot, but don't think that's right. Reason I ask is that I had a game last year where I made them re-shoot (caused a forfeit) and was just looking for a case play one way or the other.

Chuck, You're better than that! There certainly is a Case Book play on this. It is 8.7 Situation B.
Also notice that the 2nd Quarter will begin with the AP according to this casebook play. Of course, in this play the AP arrow would have been used even if the free throws had been shot in the correct order, since the T occurred before A1's free-throws were shot and that makes it part of the 1st Quarter.

8.7 sit B also shows that JR's statement is not quite right:

"According to rule 5-6-3, the restriction mentioned by Nevada above that "no part of a penalty carries over from one quarter to the next" ONLY applies to fouls that occur before the timer can stop the clock and the period ends, or fouls that occur after time expires but the ball is still alive."

In 8.7 we have a live ball personal foul as time expires. Then after time has expired in the quarter, there is a DEAD ball technical foul. We know it occurred during a dead ball because the play says it was intentional contact and it is ruled a T.
The last sentence of the ruling, then, correctly states that the AP will be used to start the second quarter, as the restriction does apply here.

Lastly, I agree that the 2nd Quarter ended with the sounding of the horn in the original play, but I cannot see considering the FTs to have been shot in the 2nd half due to the fact that they were attempted BEFORE the intermission was taken and by rule the intermission occurs BETWEEN THE HALVES. I do think that the officials mistake must cost the team a possession. Sadly.

Of course, in this play the AP arrow would have been used even if the free throws had been shot in the correct order, since the T occurred before A1's free-throws were shot and that makes it part of the 1st Quarter.

8.7 sit B also shows that JR's statement is not quite right:

"According to rule 5-6-3, the restriction mentioned by Nevada above that "no part of a penalty carries over from one quarter to the next" ONLY applies to fouls that occur before the timer can stop the clock and the period ends, or fouls that occur after time expires but the ball is still alive."

[/B][/QUOTE]Apples and oranges, Nevada. In the casebook play that you're citing above, you admit yourself that the T WAS part of the previous quarter. In the play that we're arguing, the T WASN'T part of the previous quarter. Your case book play isn't relevant, germane or applicable. Different rules apply because of the different circumstances.

Good try though.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 16th, 2004 at 01:53 PM]

Apples and oranges, Nevada. In the casebook play that you're citing above, you admit yourself that the T WAS part of the previous quarter. In the play that we're arguing, the T WASN'T part of the previous quarter. Your case book play isn't relevant, germane or applicable. Different rules apply because of the different circumstances.

Good try though.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 16th, 2004 at 01:53 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

You combined two portions of my post that were intended to be separate. I broke it apart for you.

I was only pointing out to you that there could be a DEAD ball foul AFTER TIME EXPIRES in a quarter and the restriction to not carry part of the penalty over to the next quarter would still apply. You left that case out of your original post, in which you were stating when the restriction applied.

You wrote:

"According to rule 5-6-3, the restriction mentioned by Nevada above that "no part of a penalty carries over from one quarter to the next" ONLY applies to fouls that occur before the timer can stop the clock and the period ends, or fouls that occur after time expires but the ball is still alive."
If we followed this then the officials would also award possession to the team offended by the T. That is not what is done.

Back to your original post:

The FT's WERE shot AFTER the 2nd quarter ended. They were NOT shot as part of the 2nd. quarter. Ergo, rule 5-6-4 applies, even though the timing of shooting the FT's was screwed up. The FT's were justified, so there is no correctible error. You were trying to justify an AP by using rule 5-6-3, and that rule is NOT and never WAS applicable. It is NOT applicable because the T occurred AFTER the quarter ended, and it is NOT part of the "related activity" of the previous quarter.

Nevada, without getting into your spat with JR ;) , let me just say thanks for a case citation that shows that shooting in the wrong order does not qualify as a correctible error. I think that's the common sense answer, but you found it in black and white. Good catch.

I agree with almost all of this. I think the problem that we are looking at here is a de facto one. While we agree that the T took place after the 2nd quarter ended and the FTs should have been attempted as part of the 3rd quarter (5-6-4 as you cite), it appears from the situation that, IN FACT, they weren't.

I simply have a problem deciding in which quarter the FTs were ACTUALLY shot. We agree that the 2nd quarter has ended before they were shot, but since they were attempted before the halftime intermission, I just can't believe that they were part of the 3rd quarter. Based soley upon when the officials administered them, I would have to say that they took place in the 2nd quarter. The officials certainly treated it like that. Look at the last part of 5-6-4, "the free throws are attempted immediately, as if the foul had been part of the preceding quarter." This is what was done. Agreed?

This reasoning for excluding them from the 3rd quarter seems quite compelling to me. But so does the argument that they were shot after the 2nd quarter ended. So when the heck were they attempted????

Tell me if you think they were part of the 2nd or 3rd quarter. Please.
PS Chuck, I don't think this is a spat with JR, and you are quite welcome for the citation. :)

I simply have a problem deciding in which quarter the FTs were ACTUALLY shot. We agree that the 2nd quarter has ended before they were shot, but since they were attempted before the halftime intermission, I just can't believe that they were part of the 3rd quarter. Based soley upon when the officials administered them, I would have to say that they took place in the 2nd quarter. The officials certainly treated it like that. Look at the last part of 5-6-4, "the free throws are attempted immediately, as if the foul had been part of the preceding quarter." This is what was done. Agreed?

This reasoning for excluding them from the 3rd quarter seems quite compelling to me. But so does the argument that they were shot after the 2nd quarter ended. So when the heck were they attempted????

Tell me if you think they were part of the 2nd or 3rd quarter.

[/B][/QUOTE]From the original post, the T was given to an assistant coach <b>after</b> the buzzer. There was no other "related activity" that would have delayed the ending of the second quarter. Therefore the buzzer (horn) definitely ended the second quarter. The exceptions in articles 1,2 & 3 of R 5-6 therefore aren't germane or applicable. This sitch completely fits the description of R5-6-4 though- <i>"If a technical foul occurs AFTER the ball has become DEAD to END a quarter..."</i>. Iow, all of the activity related to this situation occurred AFTER the second quarter ended- the T, the FT's, and the throw-in. None of them can possibly be part of the previous quarter then.

Btw, what wasn't clear was whether the timer had or had not started timing the intermission before the assistant coach got the T. An indirect T possibly being charged to the head coach depends on that information.

JR,
I agree with this 100%. That is clearly the rule and what SHOULD have been done. Unfortunately, it is not what WAS done. That is why I think we have to go to the arrow.
Note that after what you quoted 5-6-4 continues: "...or extra period, the next quarter or extra period is started by administering the free throws." The officials didn't do that. Well, at least not the first time around, I'm not even going to debate their wiping off the original shots and reshooting them.
My whole point is, given that the officials shot the technical foul free throws before the intermission AS IF they were part of the 2nd quarter, even though we know that they 2nd quarter had already ended and that they weren't supposed to be part of it, must we now consider them to have in fact been part of the 2nd quarter? I think so.

If you could just focus on that issue and tell me which quarter you believe the FTs were a part of given when the officials administered them, I would be happy. Thanks.

Shooting them before the teams go to intermission, while probably a little strange proceduraly, has no bearing on whether they were part of the 2nd quarter. The quarter and all related activity had ended. The fact that they shot them at the beginning of a long uncharged "time out" really doesn't change the fact that part of the penalty is to get the ball at mid court, because I think we can all agree that the T was issued after the 2nd quarter and all related activity. If that is the case then we are in the 3rd quarter as far as penalties are concerned. IMHO

I've already answered that- several times. The problem seems to be that you don't like that answer because it doesn't agree with yours. The FT's were NOT part of the 2nd quarter- in either case. The officials shot them at the wrong end of the intermission, but that doesn't change the fact that they were NOT part of the second quarter by rule. The officials then screwed up by trying to correct something that didn't have to be corrected in the first place, and wasn't correctible by rule anyway. Even though they did screw up and re-shoot the FT's, the end result was that the team did get the 2 FT's that they had coming to them. Why would you now want the officials to completely screw up and give out an AP that isn't justified by any rule in the book?

Also see CMathews' reply.It basically says the same as my response above, but I wanted to add a coupla thoughts.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Case Book play on this
 

Well, JR, while I can see your point about the free throws not being part of the 2nd quarter, I don't buy that they were part of the 3rd quarter either. They were shot before the intermission, and I did quote a rule that states the 10 minute intermission takes place between the halves. To me this means the FTs can't be considered part of the 2nd half/third quarter. They simply were shot too early.
We each have some solid rules on our side in this case. Maybe the FTs took place out of space and time in the Twilight Zone.

Unfortunately, Nevada, the FT's were shot AFTER the second quarter ENDED. That's all that matters. The rule that you cited isn't relevant in any way. Rule 5-6-4 covers the situation. There is absolutely no rules justification for you to do what you want to do.

I'll get in here late if you guys don't mind.

Just a thought.
Since the officials screwed up and administered the FT's before intermission, or during it if the clock had already started, could it be argued that the administraion of FT's did in fact make this a part of the second quarter?

Maybe this is apples and oranges...but the final score is not approved untill the officials leave the confines of the court.
The officials had not left the confines of the court for the intermission...could Nevada argue that since the officials had not left and administered the FT's, that this would all be activity during the second quarter?

Just adding a little fuel...;)

Yeah, but tell me when the 3rd quarter began! Did it really begin before halftime?

good thought
 

That is EXACTLY what I am saying! The officials mistake, not the rules made the FTs for the T part of the 2nd quarter. Therefore, we have to go to the arrow to start the 3rd.


It wasn't the argument that I originally picked, but you may have something here as one of the Referee's duties is to verify the score at the end of each HALF. So if they shoot the FTs then go to the table and pick up their jackets, switch the AP arrow, and verify the score, I think that you have to consider the points if any from the FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter! It will be interesting to see what JR says about that. I'm sure he'll shoot it down somehow.

Re: good thought
 

It wasn't the argument that I originally picked, but you may have something here as one of the Referee's duties is to verify the score at the end of each HALF. So if they shoot the FTs then go to the table and pick up their jackets, switch the AP arrow, and verify the score, I think that you have to consider the points if any from the FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter! It will be interesting to see what JR says about that. I'm sure he'll shoot it down somehow.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If the officials verify the score at the <b>END</b> of a half, you're trying to tell me that they are <b>really</b> verifying the score <b>IN</b> the second quarter? Great argument, guys. Not too logical, though. Somehow I don't think that I'm gonna buy that particular scenario.

Same point, guys, for the umpteenth time. The second quarter <b>ENDED</b>!!!! The second quarter <b>ENDED</b>, by rule!!!! <b>AFTER</b> the second quarter <b>ENDED</b>, the T was handed out. <b>AFTER</b> the second quarter <b>ENDED</b>, the FT's for the T were taken- in <b>BOTH</b> cases. The throw-in part of the penalty for the T was administered by rule also- specifically Rule 5-6-4 </b>AND</b> case book play 6.3.1SitB. There is <b>NO</b> rule that will allow you to use an AP to start the 3rd quarter in this situation.

Is that the casebook play that you were looking for, Nevada?
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation...guinsdance.gif

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 17th, 2004 at 01:07 AM]

Nevadaref -- Using your logic, if the same scenario occurred after time expired in the 4th quarter and the officials did the same thing (mistakenly administered the technical FT's before the 1 minute "intermission" prior to the beginning of overtime), would the made FT's count towards the score in the 4th quarter? Of course not. Those points would count towards the overtime period. The officials would still administer the throw-in penalty to start the over-time period.
The only situation that applies, using your thought process, is if you had a foul on a shot that was released before the clock expired at the end of the quarter and needed to shoot FT's. Then you have a T before you administer the FT's (remember the quarter has not ended until all FT's or penalties are administered). You would shoot the common foul FT(s), then the T FT's. The quarter has then ended and you cannot carry the throw-in penalty to the next period, so you go to AP arrow.
Does that make sense to you?

I agree with the above IF the score was tied at the end of the fourth quarter, and you were gonna play an OT. If the game wasn't tied, you only administer the FT's for the T if those FT's would affect the outcome of the game. These FT's then WOULD be a part of the 4th quarter, and if an OT then becomes necessary, that OT WOULD start with a jump ball. Casebook play 5.6CommentB.

Jeff,
Did you read the whole thread? This argument has nothing to do with the either JR's or my understanding of what the rules are. We agree on that. What we don't agree upon is in which quarter the FTs were actually shot. We both clearly agree upon what should have been done.
Now to your own rules knowledge. First read 5-5-1. While paying particular attention to when it states the intermissions shall take place. Secondly, your example with the FTs occurring at the end of the 4th quarter is not quite accurate because when they should be attempted by rule depends upon what the score is. If the game is tied is the only case in which they are to be attempted as part of the OT period. If the score is not tied, the FTs are either not attempted at all because they won't affect the outcome, or they are attempted immediately and treated as if they are part of the preceeding period, and how many are successful will determine the necessity of OT or not.

So let's assume we have a situation where the game is tied the 4th quarter ends and then a team receives a technical foul BEFORE the timer starts the one minute intermission. If the officials incorrectly administer the FTs before this intermission period takes place, should they be considered part of the 4th quarter or part of the OT? I think that if you took two attorneys and put them in front of a judge to argue what the Rules Book says about this, that the ruling would come down--the officials screwed up and the FTs now have to be considered part of the 4th quarter, so if either one of them is successful the game is over. Bad job officials. That's the theoretical side.
In practice, if I ever found myself in that situation on the court I would purposely go against my belief of what the Rules Book says and continue the game by going to OT. Why? because if I didn't I don't believe that I would ever be allowed on the court again. Not sure what I would do with the arrow. If both free throws were missed, I might very well start the OT with a jump ball because I believe that is correct based upon when the FTs were mistakenly attempted.
As for your last paragraph: yeah, I know how to handle that play, but what does it have to do with our discussion here about officials administering FTs at the improper time?

And saving the best for last:
JR, you have told me numerous times that the 2nd quarter was over (I even agreed that is was over), but you still haven't told me when you think the 3rd quarter started in this game in question. Try looking at it from that view. If you cannot tell me for sure that the FTs were attempted after the 3rd quarter began (not in the twilight zone), then you cannot also give the offended team the possession. I have a hard time believing that we took a ten minute break during the 3rd quarter! That's a laughable situation. :)



[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 17th, 2004 at 01:54 AM]

correctable error
 

reguarding the original post this is my take...according to rule 5 sec 6 art 4...they should have shot the f/t at the beginning of the 3rd and gave possession at the division line...since they didnt, would rule 2 sec 10 art 5 be reason not to reshoot the f/t and just start the game with the inbounding at division line ?

Since the situation in the original post is not a correctable error, I would have to say no.

So let's assume we have a situation where the game is tied the 4th quarter ends and then a team receives a technical foul BEFORE the timer starts the one minute intermission. If the officials incorrectly administer the FTs before this intermission period takes place, should they be considered part of the 4th quarter or part of the OT? I think that if you took two attorneys and put them in front of a judge to argue what the Rules Book says about this, that the ruling would come down--the officials screwed up and the FTs now have to be considered part of the 4th quarter, so if either one of them is successful the game is over.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Did the technical foul above occur <b>AFTER</b> the fourth quarter <b>ENDED</b>? Yes, it sureashell did! You stated that was so above. When the 4th quarter ended, the ball automatically became dead because there wasn't any "related activity" involved. Case book play 5.6CommentB says <i>"If a technical foul occurs after the ball has become dead to end a quarter, the next quarter is started by administering the free throws...It also applies when the foul occurs after the second half has ended,provided the score is tied"</i>. That language fits your situation completely. Conversely, there is <b>NO</b> language anywhere in the rules that will support your position.

The judge's ruling is that you and your two lawyers are full of sh*t! :D

Nevada, the officials made an error of timimg by shooting the FT's at the start, instead of at the end, of an intermission. That was an official's error, NOT a correctible error. To give out an AP now would be simply making another official's error, but one that can also be corrected, if need be. I've given you the same response umpteen times on this play. I haven't seen anything quoted from the rules that would change my mind. Obviously, we don't agree on this play. Why don't we leave it that way.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I guess we will stay on opposing sides of this. Not a total loss, we do agree on the rule and the proper way to handle the play, what we don't agree upon is how to proceed once it has been screwed up. I do not believe that 5-6-4 or the Case Book play you quoted instructs us as what to do after the free throws have been shot at the wrong time. They both only tell us how it should be done if nothing gets screwed up. In the absence of a clear proceedure such as is outlined in 2-10 for fixing a correctable error or a Case Book play similar to 8.7 Sit B, which tells us how to treat these mistimed FTs, it will have to continue to be a difference of opinion.

I would like to point out though, that despite my asking a couple of times, you never did explicitly come out and say that you consider those mistimed FTs to have been attempted in the 3rd quarter. You only state over and over that they were attempted after the 2nd quarter ended. I guess I'll just have to interpret what you think from that. :)

[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 17th, 2004 at 07:10 AM]

I would like to point out though, that despite my asking a couple of times, you never did explicitly come out and say that you consider those mistimed FTs to have been attempted in the 3rd quarter. You only state over and over that they were attempted after the 2nd quarter ended. I guess I'll just have to interpret what you think from that.

[/B][/QUOTE]No need to interpret. The FT's were attempted as part of the 3rd quarter. They were part of the 3rd quarter no matter when they were shot- as long as the second quarter was over. Which it was. The timing of the FT's- before, during or after the intermission- doesn't really change that conclusion. Again, there's no rules language available that would allow for any other conclusion than that.

Me thinks you are arguing about the wrong thing.

The FTs were after the second quarter. So, the teams should have changed ends.

My guess is that the FTs were shot in the wrong basket (iow, the same direction the teams were goping in the first half), so thiw *was* a correctable error.

Ahhhhh, very good Bob...so, the officials got it right (accidently?) in the original situation by re-shooting the FT's! :)

Now a guess turns into a fact? Great trick, guys. We were arguing a specific scenario. Not a completely different one. I also agree that it is a correctible error if they shot them at the wrong end, but we don't know if they did shoot them at the wrong end, and that was never part of this discussion anyway.

Still doesn't change the fact, Nevada, that the possession to start the 3rd quarter is still not an AP, but the possession part of the T penalty.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 17th, 2004 at 08:32 AM]

Jurassic -- you are entirely wrong about counting FT's depending on when they are shot! When the horn sounds to end the quarter (and there are no lingering/outstanding penalties to be administered), the QUARTER IS OVER! Any subsequent action is considered to be a part of the next period/quarter. When the FT's are shot, either before or after the haltime/quarter intermission does not dictate how you count the points. Either it happens before the quarter is over OR it happens after the quarter is over. There is no middle ground - the clock running or not running in between quarters doesn't make a difference one way or the other.

Are you saying that after the 4th quarter horn sounds in a tie-game and you slap a T on someone, that becuase the FT's are mistakenly administered prior to the clock operator beginning the 60-second time-frame, a team will lose because the made FT's have to count in the 4th quarter? Game Over? Not a chance.............

In my previous post, OF COURSE the score dictates wether FT's should be administered at the end of the 4th quarter - I assumed that everyone here would know that (maybe I shouldn't assume based on previous posts).

3rd -- once the 2nd quarter ends, it is in the past, and you can't go back into it. Whenever I'm working clock, I always switch the half (quarter) before I even start the halftime countdown.

Apples - halftime
Oranges - end of game.

While the officials often check the book and confer with the scorers' table during halftime, they do not "approve" the halftime score. (To do so would actually go against the rule - what if, late in the 4th, it is discovered that a signaled three was only recorded as 2 in the first quarter? That was approved, so can it be fixed?)

Re: I wouldn't mind seeing a Case Book play on this
 

A hypothetical, then.

2nd quarter clearly ends. Officials come back out for halftime warmups at 3 minutes, and with 2 minutes on the clock, A's coach starts throwing chairs and a T is assessed.

We all agree that we start the 3rd (2nd half) with the free throws. If, however, you argue that no part of a penalty carries over, then the T truly was given in some form of a twilight zone, and we can't shoot the free throws.

I really can't see why the argument is so long. The T happened after the 2nd quarter ended. We are now in the third period...5-6-1 thru 4 make this pretty clear. I do like Bob's point that brings the correctable error part into it. They most likely shot the throws at the wrong basket, however it doesn't change the fact that we don't go to the arrow for the throw in... The 4th quarter argument is even clarified and is a special exception to what would otherwise signal the end of the quarter...I guess it is similar to court location. You are where you were until you get to where your going....We are in the 2nd until it ends then we are in the 3rd :D

(1)Uh no, Jeff, the quarter is NOT over in all cases. I am saying that your all-inclusive statement above is wrong in one specific case. If the fourth quarter ends( as per the horn and with no lingering/outstanding penalties to be administered), and you THEN issue a T-- in this case, unless the score is tied, you would (a) not shoot the FT's if they didn't make a difference in the outcome of the game, or (b) shoot the FT's as PART OF THE FOURTH QUARTER. Case (b) is what makes your statement wrong. The subsequent action( FT's for the T) is NOT part of the next quarter. It becomes part of the fourth quarter. That's exactly what casebook play 5.6CommentB states. In (b), you also start the OT period with a jump ball, NOT a possession as part of the T penalty.

2)As to #2, no, I am not saying that. That is what Nevada is implying should be done, and that's what I've been arguing against. Casebook play 5.6CommentB again contradicts his stand. Does that clear that one up?

p/foul vs tech foul
 

This line of questioning has been great...learning alot listening to all the different opinions and interpetations...still have to go back and look for myself...I have noticed something else, the rule book 5-6-4 deals with techs and the case book 5.6.b says the score MUST be TIED to shoot the f/t's to determine IF there is going to be any extra periods, so if the offended team is only down by 1 the game is still over...right? Next...rule 5-6-3 exception p/foul would be administered at the end of 4th qtr. if team was down by 1 or 2 pts. right? If what I have described is true does there seem to be a difference between a p/foul vs tech foul and why? Thanks again guys!

Re: p/foul vs tech foul
 

First explain how a personal foul could occur after the 4th quarter has ended? I think it would have to be a T.
Secondly, what you wrote above is not the case. The rules says to attempt the free throws immediately and consider them part of the preceeding quarter if they could affect the outcome of the game, unless the game is tied. That covers your senario about a team being down by 1 or 2. If they are down 3 or more the game is over and the free throws are not attempted. If the game is tied the FTs are shot to begin the next period. AND SHOULD BE SHOT AFTER THE INTERMISSION!!!!! :)

2nd or 3rd quarter?
 

Bob, this is EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they shoot BEFORE THE INTERMISSION and at the basket which the team was shooting during the 1st and 2nd quarters, it certainly looks like those FTs should be considered part of the first half/2nd quarter. I never even thought about the wrong basket aspect of this. What an astute observation!

JR, that is your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree with it. I believe that the timing of the FTs before the intermission does create a problem. Here's the rule language available that would allow for a conclusion other than yours: 5-5-1 "...Playing time for teams of high school age shall be four quarters of eight minutes each with intermissions of one minute after the first and third quarters, and 10 minutes between halves. ..."
Since the intermission is required BY RULE to take place BETWEEN HALVES, you cannot consider any FTs attempted prior to the intermission to be part of the 3rd quarter. Doing so would mean that the 10 minute intermission would take place DURING THE 3RD QUARTER. That goes against rule 5-5-1. It is absurd to say that we are going to start a quarter with some FTs, take a 10 minute break, and then come back and finish the quarter. Therefore, I believe that my reasoning to consider the mistimed FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter, especially if they were attempted at the same basket with no change of ends, and chalk it up as an officials mistake, makes the most sense. We know that the shouldn't have done it this way, but they did, and now we are stuck with it.

check and approve!
 

Really? Are you sure?
2-5-7 Referee's Duties During Game
"... Check and approve the score at the end of each half."

Sure looks like it to me! :)

oh brother
 

it took a couple of minutes but...as soon as I hit the enter button I realized that you couldn't have a p/foul because the ball was dead...the thread started to unravel when I once again reread 5-6-4 and seen your point to a tie game vs shooting to determine an extra period. Thank you for your input and helping me to get it right!

Re: 2nd or 3rd quarter?
 

If they shoot BEFORE THE INTERMISSION and at the basket which the team was shooting during the 1st and 2nd quarters, it certainly looks like those FTs should be considered part of the first half/2nd quarter.

Therefore, I believe that my reasoning to consider the mistimed FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter, especially if they were attempted at the same basket with no change of ends, and chalk it up as an officials mistake, makes the most sense. We know that the shouldn't have done it this way, but they did, and now we are stuck with it.


[/B][/QUOTE]Nevada, you're completely and conveniently ignoring rule 5-6 and casebook plays 5.6CommentB and 6.3.1SitB again. You know, the rules that tells you when a quarter ENDS and how to administer technical fouls after a quarter ENDS? I've given you answers straight from the rules. I'm tired of quoting the same ones while you try to find some more irrelevant rules language to bend to try and fit your fantasy. Of course the timing of shooting the FT's was an official's mistake. But the officials made that mistake AFTER the second period ENDED. Compounding that mistake by giving an AP would be YOUR mistake and YOUR mistake alone! I've been repeating myself and repeating myself for the last 24 hours on this one and I've got nothing more to add. Believe what you want to believe. I quite simply do NOT agree with ANYTHING that you have stated so far.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 18th, 2004 at 02:48 AM]

On the contrary, I already stated why those plays do not provide a conclusive ruling on this senario. Here is what I said before:

But I'll say it again, in short, in not one of those references do the officials mistakenly award the FTs BEFORE the intermission. Therefore, none of the rules you quote tell us how to deal with this screwed up play we are discussing.

We agree upon the facts that a mistake was made by the officials and that by rule the 2nd quarter had ended. So you have a rule that you can point to that says the mistake was made AFTER the 2nd quarter ended; however, what you fail to see is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can point to that says that the mistake was made AFTER the 3rd quarter had started. You keep saying that the 2nd quarter ended and I keep saying that the 3rd quarter hadn't yet started. For heaven's sake we haven't even had the halftime intermission yet! Both points seem right. Just for once try to view it from the opposite direction.
Ask yourself, "Had the 3rd quarter began when the officials administered the FTs for the T BEFORE THE HALFTIME INTERMISSION?" I don't think so. I don't like the idea that the 10-minute halftime intermission would have to be interpreted to take place DURING the 3rd quarter, but you are welcome to have a different opinion.
The bottom line is that I believe that the FTs were mistakenly treated as if they were "related activity" of the 2nd quarter, even though they should not have been, and because that is how they were ACTUALLY administered, that is how they need to be recorded in the scorebook, approved by the referee at the end of the half, and thought of for applying 5-6-3 (no part of penalty carries over from one quarter to the next).

Unless, of course, the NFHS writes a new Case Book play on how to handle this mistake and my way turns out to be the right way. Then you will stand with the cheese. :D

Lastly, I'd like to add the you should notice that during the whole discussion I have never said that you are flat out wrong. I believe that you have made many good points, and I value your opinions, even if I disagree with them. Thank you for the time you spent debating this goofy play with me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref

Ah, I think that I'm finally seeing the light.

Nevadaref is actually Bullwinkle J. Moose. After the second quarter ended, Bullwinkle's partner- Rocky the Flying Squirrel- called a T on an assistant coach. Then Bullwinkle and Rocky jumped into their Wayback Time Machine, dialed it to "Second Quarter" and went back in time to shoot the free throws for the technical.

Makes sense now. :D

JR, um not to belittle your interpretation of how the throws could have taken place in the 2nd quarter, but Rocky and Bullwinkle didn't use the wayback machine. That honor and privelage was reserved for Sherman and the Professor. While they were indeed a part of the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, they didn't allow the critters to use the ole wayback machine... Oh and another point if the 2nd quarter did indeed end as Nevadaref pointed out just a couple posts ago...doesn't that mean we should NOT use the AP to continue the 3rd quarter?? :D

1) I stand corrected, and also in sheer admiration and awe of your vast knowledge of the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. I was more a fan of Dudley Do-Right and his ongoing fight with the forces of evil, personified by Natasha Fatale and Boris Badenov,as well as that dastardly villain- Snively Whiplash- who was was always tying Inspector Fenwick's daughter, the lovely and virginal Nell, to the railway tracks.
-PS- Trivia Time- What was the name of Dudley Do-Right's horse?

2) I don't know. I'm confused as hell now, and I gotta admit it. Something happened after something ended, so that means that the something that happened after something ended is really part of the something that happened before something ended.......

JR, I will have to acquiesce to your Doo Right trivia knowledge....I can not come up with the name of the horse without of course googling LOL....

True fans don't have to Google! :D

This is how I see it and warning I lean towards Nevadaref's interp, but make a slight concession to Jurassic. First of all I agree that the FT's shouldn't be considered part of the 2nd Q, however that being said, I don't feel they are part of the 3rd Q either. IMO, they are part of the 1st half, having come prior to the required intermission between halves. If you consider them part of the 3rd Q/2nd Half you have added 2 more mistakes to your list. You have ignored the required 10 minute intermission between halves and added an unapproved 10 minute break to the beginning of the 3rd Q. All this being said, I think to maintain the integrity of the intermission, you must go to the arrow to start the 3rd Q. Fortunatly though I think this sitch is easily corrected by the previously mentioned wrong basket correctable error scenario. I wouldn't want to be in this position though. No matter how you handle it both coachs will have beefs.

Did Dudley ever do battle with Boris and Natasha? They were more interested in Moose and Squirrel. I'm pretty sure they neve made it into The Great White North, you hoser.

Was the horse named Horse?

1) Hmmmmmm, upon further review........

2) Of course.

This is actually getting sickening LOL when I was reading Chucks post I could hear the thick Russian accent of Boris and Natasha...then the Canadian Great White North stuff from Doug and Bob....But I must add that Chuck must be a real knob since he didn't end his post with the required aye..... :D I guess we must all be in the strange brew so soon after St Patty's Day...

But I must add that Chuck must be a real knob.

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

As I recall they were more interested in battling Mooos An Skvwillell than Moose and Squirrel. Of course they sometimes joined forces when they had to, such as during the great worm stampede at the Lazy J Ranch.

Well, gotto go back to work now...

"Yes Fearless Leader! I am comink!"

<i>during the great worm stampede at the Lazy J Ranch.</i>

[/B][/QUOTE]Oh, the humanity, the humanity.....