foul out and free throws with a T

[reffish]

I was scorekeeping a game and this happened. Player A drives to basket and is fouled in the act of shooting. He is frustered for some reason and kicks the ball. Whack! Officials get together and decides to adminster the foul throws first and then the T next. However, as player A shots the second, I realize that the T was his fifth. I was not able to notify the officials until after the second throw. I told the officials that was his fifth, and he was removed before the T shots. The question, if I was able to notify the officials about the fifth foul before his free throws, what should have happened? The crew discussed the situation and we had two paths discussed, both of which made sense. Thank you.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by reffish

I was scorekeeping a game and this happened. Player A drives to basket and is fouled in the act of shooting. He is frustered for some reason and kicks the ball. Whack! Officials get together and decides to adminster the foul throws first and then the T next. However, as player A shots the second, I realize that the T was his fifth. I was not able to notify the officials until after the second throw. I told the officials that was his fifth, and he was removed before the T shots. The question, if I was able to notify the officials about the fifth foul before his free throws, what should have happened? The crew discussed the situation and we had two paths discussed, both of which made sense. Thank you.

A player is ejected when the coach is notified. Until then, he is just aplayer with 5 fouls that gets to shoot foul shots. If you told the officials this player had 5 fouls, the proper procedure would have been to bring in his/her substitute and that substitute would shoot the free throws.

These FTs are with the lane cleared, as are B's for A1's T.

[JRutledge]

I am assuming that "he" is the player that was fouled during the shot attempt?

If that is the case, then the sub would be the one shooting the FTs. This would be a correctable error situation and the sub for the fouled out player would have to re-shoot the FTs.

You always shoot the FT attempts in the order in which they took place.

If the "he" was the player that committed the foul on the shot attempt, then you just inform the officials and they would continue after the fouled out player is removed.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by reffish

Player A drives to basket and is fouled in the act of shooting. He is frustered for some reason and kicks the ball. Whack! Officials get together and decides to adminster the foul throws first and then the T next. However, as player A shots the second, I realize that the T was his fifth. I was not able to notify the officials until after the second throw. I told the officials that was his fifth, and he was removed before the T shots. The question, if I was able to notify the officials about the fifth foul before his free throws, what should have happened?

Cancel both of A's made FT's and have his substitute re-shoot them after A has been replaced. Team B will then get their 2 FT's and the ball for a throw-in at center... for A's technical foul.

The error was correctable as it was permitting the wrong player to attempt a free throw( as per NFHS rule 2-10-1c ), and it can be corrected as the error was caught before the first dead ball after the clock started(as per NFHS rule 2-10-2). You correct it using NFHS rule 2-10-4 also, thus cancelling A's FT's.

Also see case book play 2.10.4.

That's the only way to do it, rules-wise.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

A player is ejected when the coach is notified. Until then, he is just a player with 5 fouls that gets to shoot foul shots. If you told the officials this player had 5 fouls, the proper procedure would have been to bring in his/her substitute and that substitute would shoot the free throws.

These FTs are with the lane cleared, as are B's for A1's T.

I can see merit to both sides in this mess. However, at the moment, I agree with the reasoning of JugRef. You don't cancel the FTs even though the officials made a mistake in allowing this player to remain in the game to shoot them.

Of course, this means that I disagree with Rut, no surprise there , but it also means that I'm on the opposite side of JR, which I've learned is dangerous ground and means that I really need to support my position.

So here's my support:
The logic:
A. The player who was actually fouled shot the free throws and since he had not yet been disqualified at that time he is allowed to attempt them and the points count. Thus this is not a 2-10 correctable error situation of the wrong player attempting FTs.

The rule in the book:
B. 2-11-11 Note 2: "The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play because the scorer failed to notify the officials is as follows: ..." "Any points which may have been scored while such player was illegally in the game are counted."

However, this is followed by the next sentence, "If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials." That makes it nice and muddy and gives JR something in the rules book to point to in defense of his method.

Also I thought that there was an interp issued on this a year or two ago. I'll have to check.

[JRutledge]

In NCAA Rules, the Technical FTs would have been shot first. So if you noticed the mistake the player had fouled out before the shooting foul FTs were taken, then you would not have a correctable error (if the same time frame applies) . You would have to wait until the T'd player was removed from the game and then continue with the subbed player shooting the shooting foul FTs.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I can see merit to both sides in this mess. However, at the moment, I agree with the reasoning of JugRef. You don't cancel the FTs even though the officials made a mistake in allowing this player to remain in the game to shoot them.

Of course, this means that I disagree with Rut, no surprise there , but it also means that I'm on the opposite side of JR, which I've learned is dangerous ground and means that I really need to support my position.

So here's my support:
The logic:
A. The player who was actually fouled shot the free throws and since he had not yet been disqualified at that time he is allowed to attempt them and the points count. Thus this is not a 2-10 correctable error situation of the wrong player attempting FTs.

The rule in the book:
B. 2-11-11 Note 2: "The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play because the scorer failed to notify the officials is as follows: ..." "Any points which may have been scored while such player was illegally in the game are counted."

However, this is followed by the next sentence, "If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials." That makes it nice and muddy and gives JR something in the rules book to point to in defense of his method.

Also I thought that there was an interp issued on this a year or two ago. I'll have to check.

Read the case book play that I cited- 2.10.4. That should change your mind.

Iow, you're wrong. I'm right. And worse, JRut was right also.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Read the case book play that I cited- 2.10.4. That should change your mind.

Iow, you're wrong. I'm right. And worse, JRut was right also.

You mean the rulebook extraordinaire who posted all that crap cannot read a simple casebook play? Naaaaaaawwwwwwoooooaaaaaa.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

2.10.4 is not germane to the play in the original post. In 2.10.4, A1 is fouled and A2 takes the FTs. In the play under discussion here, A1 is fouled and A1 shoots the FTs.

The relevant rule is 4-14-2. A1 is not DQ'd until Coach A is notified of A1's fifth foul. A1 continues to be a player until that happens. So we have a player shooting FTs that he is entitled to (since he was the player that was fouled). There has been no error. The FTs stand, and the player is removed as soon as the mistake (not "error") is discovered.

Case 4.14.1C is the closest match, although the opponent is shooting the FTs. The FT that is already shot stands, then the DQ'd player is replaced and the game is resumed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

2.10.4 is not germane to the play in the original post. In 2.10.4, A1 is fouled and A2 takes the FTs. In the play under discussion here, A1 is fouled and A1 shoots the FTs..

The relevant rule is 4-14-2. A1 is not DQ'd until Coach A is notified of A1's fifth foul. A1 continues to be a player until that happens. So we have a player shooting FTs that he is entitled to (since he was the player that was fouled). There has been no error. The FTs stand, and the player is removed as soon as the mistake (not "error") is discovered.

Case 4.14.1C is the closest match, although the opponent is shooting the FTs. The FT that is already shot stands, then the DQ'd player is replaced and the game is resumed.

Case book play 2-10-4 suresasheck is relevant. That case play talks about a wrong player being allowed to shoot FT's. Player A is the wrong player in the op.

How can case play 4.14.1C be relevant in any way, shape or form? In that case play, the DEFENDER fouled out, NOT the SHOOTER. Apples and oranges.

We're talking about a wrong player being allowed to shoot FT's that he didn't really have coming because of disqualification, Chuck.

In the original post, player A was fouled. Player A also fouled out before he could shoot the 2 FT's that he had coming. The replacement for player A is supposed to shoot both of A's original FT's. Ergo, if player A was allowed to shoot any FT's, he was the wrong player to do so; his replacement was the right player, by rule. Sez so right in rule 8-2- "The freethrows awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury or disqualification, his/her substitute shall attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute is available". Iow, because a wrong player shot the FT's, as per R2-10-1(c), we have a correctable error. That correctable error was caught in time, as per R2-10-2. It was also supposed to be corrected as per R2-10-4, which states that any FT's taken by a wrong player are cancelled.

You and Nevada are trying to bring in rules that ain't really relevant to this sitch.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Case book play 2-10-4 suresasheck is relevant. That case play talks about a wrong player being allowed to shoot FT's. Player A is the wrong player in the op.

...

We're talking about a wrong player being allowed to shoot FT's that he didn't really have coming because of disqualification, Chuck.

In the original post, player A was fouled. Player A also fouled out before he could shoot the 2 FT's that he had coming. The replacement for player A is supposed to shoot both of A's original FT's. Ergo, if player A was allowed to shoot any FT's, he was the wrong player to do so; his replacement was the right player, by rule. Sez so right in rule 8-2- "The freethrows awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury or disqualification, his/her substitute shall attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute is available". Iow, because a wrong player shot the FT's, as per R2-10-1(c), we have a correctable error. That correctable error was caught in time, as per R2-10-2. It was also supposed to be corrected as per R2-10-4, which states that any FT's taken by a wrong player are cancelled.

There is no error in this situation. Player A may have committed the foul that should have fouled him out before the FTs but the rules quite clearly indicate that the player doesn't actually foul (become disqualified) out until the coach is notified. As such, there was no disqualification to force the player to withdraw and the correct player (the one who was fouled) shot the free throws. Only when that player has legally been disqualified does his substitute become the correct shooter. Any actions that occur prior to that point in time are valid.

[Jurassic Referee]

Case Book Play 4.14.1 SITUATION A: DISQUALIFICATION

A1 is fouled by B1 while team A is in the bonus. The covering official is at the table reporting the foul when A1 is charged with a technical foul by thje official who is observing the players. The foul on A1 is his/her fifth.
RULING: A1 is disqualified as both personal and technical fouls are counted. Because A1 has been disqualified, he/she will not be allowed to attempt the free throw(s) resulting from B1's foul. The substitute for A1 will shoot the free throw(s). (8-2)

And if A1's substitute doesn't shoot the free throws, it now becomes a correctable error under rule 2-10, yada, yada, yada......

Do you people honestly feel that the FED intended to throw the correctable error rule and everything else that I cited down the toilet just because a disqualified player wasn't notified? He was still disqualified, wasn't he?

Unless you can tie the language of 4-14-2 into this specific situation, and also come up with something that sez that rule trumps everything else cited so far in the rule or case books, then I ain't buying it.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We're talking about a wrong player being allowed to shoot FT's that he didn't really have coming because of disqualification, Chuck.

This is exactly where you are incorrect, JR. He never was disqualified. Therefore, he is an eligible player throwing a live ball into the basket. That can't be undone b/c he was supposed to be disqualified. Failing to DQ a player is not a correctable error. My rule citation above is the relevant one to this play, as Camron just pointed out.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

He was still disqualified, wasn't he?

No, he wasn't. This is made explicit in 4-14-2. I don't see how you can set this rule aside.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Case Book Play 4.14.1 SITUATION A: DISQUALIFICATION

Just to add one more thought. Your case play deals with a player who fouled out and was disqualified. The case play I cited has to do with a player who fouled out but was not disqualified. In my case, the action before the player was properly DQ'd was allowed to stand. That's what I think is similar to the play under discussion.