Dead ball foul - diff. between intentional and technical

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, and the "player" can be any tem member who is eligible to enter the game. In NCAA the same player must shoot both throws (unless sometning unusual like a DQ or an injury happens to that player). in FED, a different player can shoot the second throw.

Bob, I don't remember hearing this about FED - can you direct me to the relevant rule or casebook play? TIA.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Bob, I don't remember hearing this about FED - can you direct me to the relevant rule or casebook play? TIA.

NFHS rule 8-3.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 8-3.

OK, but that's not decisive, and what about case 8.2 COMMENT?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, but that's not decisive, and what about case 8.2 COMMENT?

It's not only decisive, it's clear. Case book play 8.2 backs it up also.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's not only decisive, it's clear. Case book play 8.2 backs it up also.

Says you.

Originally Posted by RULEBOOK

8-3: 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).

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).

Originally Posted by CASEBOOK

8.2 COMMENT: When A1 is designated to attempt a free throw(s), no other player shall be permitted to make the attempt unless A1 is injured or disqualified prior to the attempt.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Your friend is wise beyond his years. He must be a Rockies fan