I don't follow the Fed's rationale for the difference in the penalty administration for these two plays:

1. A1 shoots and is fouled by B1, while the ball is on the ring A2 commits BI.
Penalty: No goal, A1 shoots 2 FTs with the lane spaces occupied. 6.7.9

2. A1 shoots and is fouled by B1, while the ball is one the ring A2 commits a foul against B2 under the basket. Team B is not in the bonus. The try is unsuccessful.
Penalty: No goal, award A1 2FTs with the lane cleared and give the ball to Team B OOB on the endline. 6.7.4 (slightly modified)

Both a violation and a foul carry the penalty of awarding the ball OOB to the opponents 7-4-1+6, so why the difference in how the game continues here?

Specifically, why not shoot with the lane cleared in #1 as well? It seems that we are failing to fully punish the violation by allowing Team A an attempt to rebound a miss on the final attempt.
What if the violation by A2 in play #1 had been for excessively swinging elbows? Does anyone feel that should change the ensuing FT administration?

The difference is that in sitch #2, part of the penalty is awarding possession of the ball to team B after the FTs. In sitch #1, Team B doesn't get the ball just b/c of the violation.

It's because of the try, and when the ball becomes dead on a try.

A1 jumps to shoot and is fouled by B1, A1 never releases the ball and returns to the floor, are you going to shoot 2 with the lane cleared and award B the ball on the travel?

That's not a violation. The BI is a violation.

Take it further, A1 jumps, gets fouled,lands then releases the try and it goes in, are you going to count it?

The question asked was the difference between the penalties on a foul on A2 versus a violation on A2 and that difference is the ball becomes dead on the violation, but not the foul.

That has nothing to do with ther original plays.

No, that's not the difference. What causes the ball to become dead has nothing to do with the issue.

NVref's question is what is the rationale for the ball not being awarded to Team B after the FTs in play 1? Neither of your explanations answer that question.

You still did not answer the question.

Yes, the ball becoming dead on the violation DOES answer the question. The foul did not cause the try to end, the violation did, THAT IS THE PENALTY when you have a foul against the shooting team and then a VIOLATION by the shooting team. The foul, which did not end the try, carries it's own penalty, thus the cleared lane.

First, I wasn't attempting to answer the question.

Second, his question addresses the rationale behind making such a distinction. Your answer is NOT that rationale, IMHO.

Third, your added scenario of a shooter returning to the floor and not releasing the shot makes no sense whatsoever.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 26th, 2004 at 05:00 PM]

It DOES explain why there is a difference, I'll repeat it since you appear to not get it.

A foul does not end the try, so the penalty, FTs or ball OOB, happen as they occurred. Thus A1 shoots with a cleared lane, and B gets the ball after the final FT.

The violation on the shooting team DOES end the try, that is the penalty per rule, the foul would end the play, unless there is a try yet to be decided.

Why doesn't my play make sense? You have a try beginning, a foul, and a try ending. Unless you would count the basket, you have yet to answer that question.;)

Here's a scenario for you.

A 1 drives, is fouled by B1 as he starts his motion, releases the ball and charges over B2 as he returns to the floor.

The PC foul causes the ball to become dead. According to your interp, since the PC caused the ball to become dead, it's the same as the violation. When A2 committed BI, we resumed play with the FT. Do we clear the lane for A1's FTs after the PC or do we resume play with the FT?

We have a false double foul, each foul carries it's own penalty, and the ball would not become live on a missed second FT, so there is nobody in the lane.

A false double foul is backed by rule, with the full penalty enforced for each foul. That is not the case for a foul and then a violation, because the violation would normally be ignored...your first response in the thread about the player returning to the floor...unless a try is still in question.

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!! THANK YOU!!!

That's NVRef's question! WHY? Why do you essentially ignore the violation?

If you would just read his post for what's it's worth and stop being so offended every time I reply to one of your messages, then maybe you could participate in the discussion, instead of being so defensive and taking your little potshots at me.

I'm done.

You always post with the holier-than-thou attitude and I'm taking potshots?

PLEASE!

I answered the question that was asked, pointing out WHY it is handled differently, and you make it sound like you convinced me of something. I noticed that you still have not put your two cents in, nor have you answered my question about would you count the basket if A1 returned to the floor and then shot the ball.

Well, Z, you have made a point that the ball becomes dead on a violation and usually does not on a foul when there is a try in flight. (PC being the exception) I also see your point about the player being fouled in the act of shooting, but then traveling before being able to actually shoot. I know that the try does NOT count if successful due to the travel ending continuous motion. There is a case play on that somewhere. The shooter gets 2FTs and the game resumes from the free throws as normal. So in that case we don't clear the lane either.
But what I am looking for is more than merely a rule, other play examples, or a that's-just-the-way-it-is-done argument, I want the rationale behind the NFHS rule for this difference (if there even is one somewhere which states to ignore the awarding OOB part of the violation penalty in these cases).

I happen to agree with Tony that the dead ball thing doesn't seem to be enough by itself to decide whether the lane is cleared or occupied during the ensuing FTs. Tony's example of the false double foul with the second foul being a PC is a good one to show that a foul can cause the ball to become dead during a try and yet the lane is cleared for the FTs unlike administration after the dead ball caused by a violation.

I still think that the violating team is getting off easy by not losing the ball. The whole thing certainly seems inconsistent to me, but that's probably just the NFHS for ya.

It happens when you shoot T's that were not simultaneous, so one team loses the throw in penalty based on when the fouls occurred.

The rationale is the order they occur and that the violation would be ignored if not for the try.

We do have the following about dead ball contact, "Contact, unless intentional or flagrant, should be ignored," so perhaps they consider this situation to be the same.