Dead ball foul - diff. between intentional and technical

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This rule as written does not state explicitly that one player may shoot the first FT for a T and that another player may shoot the other. The last sentence implies it, but implication is not decisive (nor, for that matter, clear).

What could be more clear than free thrower(s)? I've been slacking as Mr. Grammar & Spelling guy, but last I checked, the 's' at the end makes "free throwers" plural.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Says you.



This rule as written does not state explicitly that one player may shoot the first FT for a T and that another player may shoot the other. The last sentence implies it, but implication is not decisive (nor, for that matter, clear).



This casebook comment implies that the two FT's for a T must be attempted by a single player, except in case of injury or disqualification.

This is the basis on which I originally questioned Bob's assertion that under NFHS rules it's permissible to have two different players shoot FT's for a T. That situation would be exceptional, not discretionary. And if that was what Bob originally meant, I don't see the difference from NCAA.

Don't they have rules interpreters in your state?

That's a pretty basic rule to mis-interpret. It hasn't changed in a long time either. But....if you don't want to believe everyone here that tells you that you're wrong, hey, that's fine too. Call it any way that you want. And good luck in your future officiating endeavors.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Don't they have rules interpreters in your state?

That's a pretty basic rule to mis-interpret. It hasn't changed in a long time either. But....if you don't want to believe everyone here that tells you that you're wrong, hey, that's fine too. Call it any way that you want. And good luck in your future officiating endeavors.

Sure, we have interpreters here, but they're not snide and seldom resort to sarcasm when they cannot adequately defend their point of view.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, because I have offered no interpretation. I asked a question about a rule.

The rule doesn't explicitly say that different shooters may attempt the FT's for a T, but, according to you, standard practice and interps. allow it. Why not just say so? I'm OK with that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

What could be more clear than free thrower(s)? I've been slacking as Mr. Grammar & Spelling guy, but last I checked, the 's' at the end makes "free throwers" plural.

You've been slacking. There is no 's' at the end: it's in parentheses, which makes a difference. And, it could refer to a substitute brought in due to disqualification or injury, the exceptional case explicitly stated in the rule.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You've been slacking. There is no 's' at the end: it's in parentheses, which makes a difference. And, it could refer to a substitute brought in due to disqualification or injury, the exceptional case explicitly stated in the rule.

Yes, the 's' in parenthesis does make a difference. It means that the throws do not have to be taken by different people, but certainly can be. BTW It would really be exceptional to have a disqualification or injury replacement of the shooter in the middle of a pair of throws for a T. If there's a DQ or injury, you get the replacement before you shoot.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sure, we have interpreters here, but they're not snide and seldom resort to sarcasm when they cannot adequately defend their point of view.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, because I have offered no interpretation. I asked a question about a rule.

The rule doesn't explicitly say that different shooters may attempt the FT's for a T, but, according to you, standard practice and interps. allow it. Why not just say so? I'm OK with that.

Yup, you asked a question about a rule. And you also chose not to accept the answer that you were given. That answer was the pertinent NFHS rule.

The rule sureasheck does say that different shooters may attempt technical foul free throws. You chose to interpret the rule completely different than the way that it's been explicitly written, and also as well as how it's also been administered since the rule was put in. You chose not to believe anyone that pointed it out to you. If you don't want to believe responses to your posts, well, personally I really could care less. That's your perogative. But it's only common sense that you would also check with your local rules interpreter to see who was correct. Had you done so, you would have found out that you were wrong. Deal with it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, you asked a question about a rule. And you also chose not to accept the answer that you were given. That answer was the pertinent NFHS rule.

The rule sureasheck does say that different shooters may attempt technical foul free throws. You chose to interpret the rule completely different than the way that it's been explicitly written, and also as well as how it's also been administered since the rule was put in. You chose not to believe anyone that pointed it out to you. If you don't want to believe responses to your posts, well, personally I really could care less. That's your perogative. But it's only common sense that you would also check with your local rules interpreter to see who was correct. Had you done so, you would have found out that you were wrong. Deal with it.

Read the thread again. You cited a rule without explanation. I asked for an explanation, which you did not offer. When I explained the basis for my request - namely that the rule does not say what you seem to think, and the casebook play seems to undercut your interpretation - you attacked me.

I reproduced the rule in the thread above: show me where it explicitly says that different shooters may attempt the FT's on a T. It doesn't: it might imply it, which leaves open that interpretation.

Now you're trying to bolster your view with bluster and insult. You might be right, but you're not proving it. I can't be wrong, because I'm asking a question (and questions are neither true nor false). And it's not me against the world until I disagree with the world.

A little more light and less heat would clear this issue up, I'm sure. Perhaps you're not the person to supply what's required.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

A little more light and less heat would clear this issue up, I'm sure. Perhaps you're not the person to supply what's required.

You were given the "light" two days ago. All it ever took from the git-go was for you to open a rule book and read the rule. You chose not to believe the rule as written. As I said before, that's fine with me. I supplied a rules citation and that isn't good enough for you. I could care less if you don't want to believe me, or every other responder who has also told you that your view was wrong. And if you don't believe the responses that you get on this forum, then it's kinda obvious that your next step would be to ask your local rules interpreter. Why don't you give that at try? Maybe you can let us all know what your interpreter's response to you was when you get one.

Until then, it's a waste of time for me to repeat the same things endlessly. Interpret it and apply it any way that you feel like. Don't make no nevermind to me. Shrug.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You were given the "light" two days ago. All it ever took from the git-go was for you to open a rule book and read the rule.

How absurd. Back in post #15 of this thread, I posted both the text of the rule you cited and a casebook situation that seems to contradict your interpretation. All I asked for was an explanation of the apparent contradiction. I urge you to read it yourself.

I'm done with this thread as well. I'm disappointed with your responses, as you're ordinarily much more on point and much less ad hominem. How could I have failed to accept your explanation when you've offered none?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How absurd. Back in post #15 of this thread, I posted both the text of the rule you cited and a casebook situation that seems to contradict your interpretation. All I asked for was an explanation of the apparent contradiction. I urge you to read it yourself.

I'm done with this thread as well. I'm disappointed with your responses, as you're ordinarily much more on point and much less ad hominem. How could I have failed to accept your explanation when you've offered none?

Please let us know the response of your rules interpreter. Hopefully, you'll believe him.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Please let us know the response of your rules interpreter. Hopefully, you'll believe him.

I believe you, but all you've said of substance is that there's no explanation for the apparent contradiction between your interpretation of the rule and the casebook situation. I can accept that, but the accompanying vituperation is annoying.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How absurd. Back in post #15 of this thread, I posted both the text of the rule you cited and a casebook situation that seems to contradict your interpretation. All I asked for was an explanation of the apparent contradiction. I urge you to read it yourself.

I'm done with this thread as well. I'm disappointed with your responses, as you're ordinarily much more on point and much less ad hominem. How could I have failed to accept your explanation when you've offered none?

I don't have my case book with me at the moment to double-check what I'm about to say, however it appears that you're comparing apples and oranges.

Rule 8-3 talks about shooting technical foul free throws.

SECTION 3 ATTEMPTING TECHNICAL-FOUL FREE THROWS
The free throws awarded because of a technical foul may be attempted by any player of the offended team, including an eligible substitute or designated starter. The coach or captain shall designate the free thrower(s).

Sure, the language could be more explicit. But the psuedo-word "thrower(s)" is shorthand for "thrower or throwers." There is no absolute need for the rule to say, "And yes, this means that different players could shoot each of the free throws." As written the rule allows that it may happen.

As for the apparent contradicting case: I do not wish to seem condescending, but you are aware that the numbering of rules and cases corresponds, are you not? The case you cite is 8.2, which corresponds to rule 8-2 which talks about shooting personal foul free throws.

SECTION 2 ATTEMPTING PERSONAL-FOUL FREE THROWS
The free throw(s) 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, in which case any teammate may attempt the throw(s) as selected by the team captain or head coach."

The comment, as it applies to the rule it supports, is correct. The player who was fouled must take the throws, unless he or she has been injured or disqualified (which would normally happen before the throws, but could also happen between the throws).

[Adam]

The fact that "player" has an "(s)" appended to the end is pretty clear that more than one player is allowed to take the T shots. Furthermore, with nothing explicitly forbidding it; it has to be allowed.

[Adam]

Okay, now I need to quote my friend Case Book. I'm only going to quote one sentence, though, as it pretty much closes this case. For those wondering, it's the last sentence in 8.2.

Originally Posted by Case Book

If this situation involved technical foul free throws, A7 would be allowed to enter and attempt the second free throw.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I believe you, but all you've said of substance is that there's no explanation for the apparent contradiction between your interpretation of the rule and the casebook situation. I can accept that, but the accompanying vituperation is annoying.

No vituperation was intended. Imo, it's an explicit rule. In your opinion it isn't. So be it. We disagree. End of story....fade to black.