The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 13, 2004, 02:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally posted by Jimgolf
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
A double foul causes the ball to become dead immediately, if the ball is not yet in flight. Continuous motion does not apply to double fouls only to personal or technical fouls.
6.7 Comment "Continuous motion is of significance only when there is a personal or technical foul by B after the trying or tapping motion by A1 is started and before the ball is in flight."
Where does it say that continuous motion does not apply to double personal fouls?
Right there in the Case Book comment to 6.7! It specifies ONLY personal or technical fouls. Logically, this must tell you that continuous motion does NOT apply to all of the other types of fouls. All of the different types of fouls are listed in 4-19. A double foul is an entirely different animal. Even though it may consist of two personal fouls, it is not a personal foul. Many people are unclear on that point.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jimgolf I think the situation you quote is simply to illustrate that a double personal foul is not a player control foul.
That is quite true. And since it is not a PC, but something totally different the ball does not become dead. One thing that this case book play does is demonstrate that the basket counts if a double foul occurs WHILE A TRY IS IN FLIGHT. That is why I cited it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jimgolf
Is there anywhere else this is mentioned?
The only other reference I can find is 6-7 Exception 3 (following Art. 9). It is not any clearer than what I have already told you though. The language used there is "A foul committed by any opponent..."
Since a double foul is not a foul by an opponent, it is a foul committed by both teams, this exception wouldn't apply and the ball becomes dead per 6-7-7.
That is the best I can do for ya. Perhaps the NFHS should issue one of its wonderful "clarifications" on this.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 13, 2004, 08:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 944
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nevadaref
Right there in the Case Book comment to 6.7! It specifies ONLY personal or technical fouls. Logically, this must tell you that continuous motion does NOT apply to all of the other types of fouls. All of the different types of fouls are listed in 4-19. A double foul is an entirely different animal. Even though it may consist of two personal fouls, it is not a personal foul. Many people are unclear on that point.

Logically, this does not follow. A double foul is two personal fouls or two technical fouls. It is not a different type of foul than specified in 6.7, just two of them. I defer to your experience, but this is another instance of poor writing on Fed's part.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 13, 2004, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 768
i have to agree, double foul is just 2 personals

not a different type of foul, just happens to be two of them, or that is how i would see it! I think it is definitely a bad way to be written though.
__________________
DETERMINATION ALL BUT ERASES THE THIN LINE BETWEEN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE POSSIBLE!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 16, 2004, 09:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,050
Thanks Lotto. I just received my 2005 Rule Book. You nailed it.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 19, 2004, 07:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimgolf
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Right there in the Case Book comment to 6.7! It specifies ONLY personal or technical fouls. Logically, this must tell you that continuous motion does NOT apply to all of the other types of fouls. All of the different types of fouls are listed in 4-19. A double foul is an entirely different animal. Even though it may consist of two personal fouls, it is not a personal foul. Many people are unclear on that point.

Logically, this does not follow. A double foul is two personal fouls or two technical fouls. It is not a different type of foul than specified in 6.7, just two of them. I defer to your experience, but this is another instance of poor writing on Fed's part.
It may not seem logical but this is the NFHS. The reason that a double foul must be considered a different type of foul is due to a rule change quite a while ago which dramatically altered the penalty phase.
Back in the day if Team A had committed 8 fouls in the half while Team B had only committed 4, and a double personal foul was called, then Team B would go shoot 1-and-1. If both teams were in the bonus, I think, both teams shot FTs.
Today the NFHS rule is that NO FTs are awarded on double personal or double technical fouls and possession is awarded by using the arrow.
So you can see why you cannot just consider a double foul to be two personal fouls. The penalty phase is entirely different.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1