The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 11:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 153
Nevada Ref and I worked 4 games together this weekend. Here is one of the sitches that came about:
A1 has the ball at FT line extended -
B1 fouls A1 -
While B1 is fouling A1, A1 disrespectfully addresses -
I did not whap A1(Don't ask) -
How would we have proceeded if I had called the T?

Of course we talked about order of occurrence, the fact that they happened simultaneously and being hopeful that I would've reported and administered that they happened at different times(for confusion's sake). However, they actually happened simultaneously.

So if I would have come up with a common foul and a technical foul and had the misfortune of acknowledging that they happened simultaneoulsy, what do we do there?

We gave each other input but I want to see what the brainiacs on here have to say.
AAR
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,592
Who did A1 disrespectfully address? Was he made because he just got fouled? If so then I would have to say that was not simultaneous and you'd have to handle in order they occured. If in 1 and 1 then A1 shoots with a cleared lane, then team B shoots the T and B's ball at mid court.

If no 1 and 1 then team B shoots the T and they get the ball at mid court. Coach A should buy A1 a zipper and have his Momma sew his lips shut so he doesn't lose him another possession.

BTW, I don't consider myself a brainiac.
__________________
Do you ever feel like your stuff strutted off without you?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:36pm
Huck Finn
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,347
Uhh, ChrisSportFan let me toot AAR's horn a little.

He is a good ref. I have worked with him in a state championship and he is on point. He wasn't asking how things should go if he had a foul and then a T. He wanted to know how things would go if they occured at the same time. You changed it for him then gave him advice on something that I know for a fact he has administered many times before.
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisSportsFan
Who did A1 disrespectfully address? Was he made because he just got fouled? If so then I would have to say that was not simultaneous and you'd have to handle in order they occured. If in 1 and 1 then A1 shoots with a cleared lane, then team B shoots the T and B's ball at mid court.

If no 1 and 1 then team B shoots the T and they get the ball at mid court. Coach A should buy A1 a zipper and have his Momma sew his lips shut so he doesn't lose him another possession.

BTW, I don't consider myself a brainiac.

That is not what happened.
Yours is administration 101.(No problem on yours)
If you change the situation, it is a completely different play.
Thanks though.
AAR
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 153
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
Uhh, ChrisSportFan let me toot AAR's horn a little.

He is a good ref. I have worked with him in a state championship and he is on point. He wasn't asking how things should go if he had a foul and then a T. He wanted to know how things would go if they occured at the same time. You changed it for him then gave him advice on something that I know for a fact he has administered many times before.
Thanks T!!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
I'm not sure if it's all that clear after reading the summary of penalties on pg. 67 of the FED rulebook. It says no FTs for simultaneous personal or technical fouls by opponents. This suggests to me that there are no FTs if all of the simultaneous fouls are of the same type. IOW, it sounds to me like there are no FTs when simultaneous personal fouls are committed or when simultaneous technical fouls are committed. Otherwise why specify "personal or technical"? What else is there?

So if the fouls are of different types, maybe you shoot all the FTs and award the ball to the team that did not commit the technical foul.

If I'm reading too much into it, then it just means no FTs for any simultaneous fouls, and just go to the arrow. The case book only gives an example of simultaneous personals.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 12:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
I'm not sure if it's all that clear after reading the summary of penalties on pg. 67 of the FED rulebook. It says no FTs for simultaneous personal or technical fouls by opponents. This suggests to me that there are no FTs if all of the simultaneous fouls are of the same type. IOW, it sounds to me like there are no FTs when simultaneous personal fouls are committed or when simultaneous technical fouls are committed. Otherwise why specify "personal or technical"? What else is there?

So if the fouls are of different types, maybe you shoot all the FTs and award the ball to the team that did not commit the technical foul.

If I'm reading too much into it, then it just means no FTs for any simultaneous fouls, and just go to the arrow. The case book only gives an example of simultaneous personals.
I think the book is ambiguous at best and your explanation could be a pefectly valid interp. I was leaning the other way...no FTs and go to the arrow.

The definition and the note attached to the definition, however, do seem to suggest that the writers of the simultaneous foul rule only comprehended two fouls of the same type (both personal or both technical).
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 01:26pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by Almost Always Right
Nevada Ref and I worked 4 games together this weekend.
My condolences.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 01:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
I'm not sure if it's all that clear after reading the summary of penalties on pg. 67 of the FED rulebook. It says no FTs for simultaneous personal or technical fouls by opponents. This suggests to me that there are no FTs if all of the simultaneous fouls are of the same type. IOW, it sounds to me like there are no FTs when simultaneous personal fouls are committed or when simultaneous technical fouls are committed. Otherwise why specify "personal or technical"? What else is there?

So if the fouls are of different types, maybe you shoot all the FTs and award the ball to the team that did not commit the technical foul.

If I'm reading too much into it, then it just means no FTs for any simultaneous fouls, and just go to the arrow. The case book only gives an example of simultaneous personals.
I think the book is ambiguous at best and your explanation could be a pefectly valid interp. I was leaning the other way...no FTs and go to the arrow.

The definition and the note attached to the definition, however, do seem to suggest that the writers of the simultaneous foul rule only comprehended two fouls of the same type (both personal or both technical).
No arrow this coming season, it's POI.

How I handle it is going to be based on who A1 is disrespectfully addressing. If it is B1 I go simultaneous and POI with no FTs.

If A1 is talking to me or my partner, I am leaning toward foul on B1, with whatever FTs are part of the penalty, and a whack on A1 with B shooting 2 and getting the ball at mid court.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 01:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NV
Posts: 153
No arrow this coming season, it's POI.

[/B][/QUOTE]


Could you direct me to this reference please?
Thanks in advance.
AAR
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 02:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
BlindZebra was half right - POI will be used for the following situations.........

7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

Note that it is NOT intended for use during a "single" technical foul. The NFHS Rules committee did not want one team to benefit during a double/simultaneous technical situation based on the arrow. Therefore, player A1 gets hit w/ a T, Team B shoots FT's AND will get the ball (NO POI).
__________________
Jeff Pearson
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 02:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
I vote for no shots, POI.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 02:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffpea
BlindZebra was half right - POI will be used for the following situations.........

7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

Note that it is NOT intended for use during a "single" technical foul. The NFHS Rules committee did not want one team to benefit during a double/simultaneous technical situation based on the arrow. Therefore, player A1 gets hit w/ a T, Team B shoots FT's AND will get the ball (NO POI).
The situation as described could fall under simultaneous fouls. The language in the rules is vague about this, which is why this thread started.

If you judge that the personal and technical happened at the same time it would be POI under simultaneous fouls.

If you judge A1's T resulted from his reaction to B1's foul it is not simultaneous the foul by B1 came first and you administer in order.

Without clarification this is a play where you could be right either way.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 292
Just off the top of my head and by going by 2004-05 rules I would assume A1 would shoot free-throws if his team was in the bonus. Then a team B member would shoot two free-throws for the technical, then team B would get the ball at mid-court.

In the center circle about 30 seconds before the first basketball game I ever officiated my partner looked at me and said, "Let's have fun and keep it simple."
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 09, 2005, 03:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
The situation as described could fall under simultaneous fouls.

BZ, not to sound snooty, but if you read the whole thread, the situation as described is a simultaneous foul situation. The personal and technical occur at the same time. So the question is how we administer this.

Quote:
If you judge that the personal and technical happened at the same time it would be POI under simultaneous fouls.
That is precisely what is vague. Do a personal foul plus a technical foul at the same time equal a simultaneous foul? I don't think it's all that cut-and-dried in the rules. And the casebook doesn't help, b/c the only case they give us for simultaneous fouls describes two personal fouls; not one of each.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't really care which way it gets resolved. I'm just saying it needs to be resolved, b/c it's not clear in the rules.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
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 04:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1