one more from the study guide
 

Team A is charged with a technical foul before the start of the game. While the ball is at the disposal of B1 for the first free throw, a double personal foul is assessed. Official re-administers the first free throw, and following the second free throw, awards team B the ball for a throw in at the division line.

As written, I suppose this question is true, but can anyone imagine this scenario? While a technical free throw is being shot two players on opposite teams tie up? I expect to find a question that involves a flying saucer before I get to the end.

Illeagal question because you can't have a personal foul during a technical foul free throw.

4-19-1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent form performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

As we have no normal defensive or offensive movements, nor an airborne shooter, we can't have a personal foul.

You really don't understand the rules concepts, do you?

The ball is live during any free throw from the time that the shooter has it until the free throw ends. Rule 6-1-2(c) and 6-7-2. Any contact foul that occurs during that live ball is a personal foul, as per 4-19-1(your own cite).

Ergo, you're completely wrong.

Are you suggesting to us that we are going to have normal defensive or offensive movements during a technical foul free throw?

Who doesn't understand the rules concepts? Me thinks you.

Example to disprove your assertion: B1 steps into the circle and fouls A1 (the player taking the FT) during the FT preventing A1 from making normal offensive movements. Penalty will be a FT violation (if missed) and a foul.

<STRIKE>The answer is false...look up when the arrow is set.</STRIKE>

EDIT: I've been corrected below...I was reverting back to old rules with this statement....ignore it. :)

What's the arrow got to do with this?

Kajun, you're not correct. JR is. He could have been nicer in telling you that, but he is often cantankerous! :D He is also often right.

Don't bicker with him, just accept what he is telling you and learn from it. You will be a better official for it. When it comes to the NFHS rules, JR is one of the BIG DAWGS.

Camron, you goofed. You know this stuff, but must have gotten this one turned around in your head. The answer is true. The arrow has nothing to do with the first possession. That is awarded as part of the penalty for the technical foul. The arrow would be set towards Team A when the thrower for Team B has the ball at his disposal for the throw-in following the technical foul FTs per 4-3-3b. This was a noncommon foul! ;)

Disclaimer this is merely an amusing side note. It is NOT the current rule.

Prior to the NFHS instituting the POI rule, the double personal foul in this scenario would have trumped the awarding of the possession to Team B following the FTs. The two players involved in the double foul would have to take part in a jump ball in the center circle to resume the game.

That change may be the point behind the testers putting this question on your study guide.

Methinks you should read NFHS case book play 8.7SitA.

It says that you're still wrong.

I apologize if you feel that is cantankerous too. :)

Thanks for that frame of reference. I had forgot all about the POI.

Now that we......
 

all agree :) on the answer to the question as written, let's analyze further. In reality, if two players start fouling each other during technical free throws, isn't it likely to be considered a fight? Also, as for the possibility of B1 entering the circle to foul A1 during the free throw, wouldn't we have a technical for unsporting behavior when he entered the circle?

OK, I stand corrected as in case 8.7 SitA. I apparently misread 4-17-1. I now understand the definition better.

Anybody else around here we can't disagree or bicker with, Nevada? Why don't you go ahead and post the entire list to save us mere mortals some time in the future.

btw, I'll reserve violently disagreeing with you on your elevation of anyone to the rank of infallible until I see if you put your own name on the list.

Um, just for the record, I had to laugh when I read that too.

Infallable, I sureashell ain't.

Now cute.....

Carry on being your usual disagreeable self, Slappy. :D