What do you think..........
 

This situation involves two teams near the bottom of their league and also neither of these teams like each other to say the very least. Basically a Michigan /Ohio State football type setting.

Also at the time of this situation, both teams are in the bonus whether 1 & 1 or double bonus.

Team A shoots. Rebounding foul called on Team A. Before this foul can be reported....Team A player and Team B player decide they want exchange greetings with each other. I am C and the T both say it and come to get it. Both of us were on the same page with a getting borth players.

We went with a double foul. No problem so far. However, we had the first foul to administer though. At first we were going to clear the free throw lane, shoot the bonus free throws, and go with the P arrow at the point of interuption.

Then, we got to thinking further about the definition of Point of Interuption. We agreed on and went with putting everyone on the free throw lane, shooting the free throws and playing on. We based this decision Rule 4-36 from NFHS. Our thought and decision was based on the fact that the point of interuption was the free throws.

Were we right? What would you have done? Based on reviewing the rulebook after the game, we feel that we handled it correctly.

correct
 

Yes you were correct. POI

That is correct--if both happened at approximately the same time (which you said), then you don't shoot anything and go on from where you were. If it were 2 separate acts, then you would administer all 3(first foul then T then T) in the order that they occurred--only prob is you went with double foul, which cannot happen because the ball is dead, would have to be a double T

Huh?:confused:

I went back and re-read John's post. It sounds like he called a double foul composed of a technical foul on each player. Nothing the matter with that rules-wise.

After discussion with my supervisor this afternoon, we administered this wrong. We should have called double T's instead of double personal fouls because this occurred while the ball was dead.

We were correct in shooting the F/T's for the first foul. But, we should have cleared the lane during the shots and went to the AP arrow.

This is FED rules? Did your assigner say why to go with the arrow?

We talked about this situation during an Area meeting, and everyone agreed that the situation goes as follows

Shoot Personal Foul FT by team B
Shoot Technical Fouls in order of occurence
Team A takes ball out at division line

Thats what we agreed on, and thats what was given to us by the KSHSAA Officials Director

Sounds like a double tech, which would be POI. POI would be AP arrow due to no team control at the POI. Shoot the bonus with lane clear and go to AP for throw in. Wonder how they came up with that ruling? I would have to agree with Johns supervisor.

Unbelievable.....

You <b>never</b> shoot FT's for any double foul. That's a basic. Methinks you need a new KHSAA Officials Director. Your present one doesn't know the rules.

Tell your Officials Director he needs to read NFHS rule 10-6PENALTIES1(c) on p66 of the rule book.:rolleyes:

POI would be to play off the shots.

4-36 clearly states that POI is a a free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity..

AP only occurs when neither team is in comtrol and no goal, infraction, or end of quarter is involved. AP arrow could never be used here...

No way would I agree wit the supervisor here

I stand corrected. The infraction of the foul would take the AP arrow out of the equation. Shoot the bonus with lane occupied and play on. Thanks Kelvin.

Kelvin,

At the time of this game, I agreed with your response 100%. But after the discussion with my supervisor, who is also an active college womens official, we did do this wrong.

The double foul happened during dead ball time. Where we made the mistake(s) was (1) totally never thought about the fact that this happened on a dead ball. (2) Cannot have a double personal foul during a dead ball.

It should have been a double T. Shoot bonus FT's with the lane cleared for the original live ball foul during the rebounding action. Use the AP arrow for the double T after the FT's for the original foul at the POI.

Sigh. Unless your state is using some different rules, it matters not whether this was a double T or a double P (and I agree it was a double T).

FED 7-5-9: After a double personal foul ..., a double technical foul ..., or a simultaneous foul ..., [lay shall be resumes at the point of interruption.

Last year's NCAA reference (all I have handy) is 7-5.10

Your supervisor doesn't know the rules.

No, it sureasheck shouldn't have been an AP arrow under NFHS rules, as posted above. That's completely wrong. Rule 4-36-1 says that double technical fouls use the POI. Rule 10PENALTIES 1(b) says that there are no Ft's administered for a double technical foul. Rule 4-36-2(b) says that the POI is the bonus free throw(s) that team B is entitled to. You just line 'em up and the team B player that was originally fouled on the rebound gets to shoot the bonus FT's, as already cited above.

Not under NCAA rules either. So there goes the "active college official" excuse.

The only thing I can think of is that he might be an IAABO rules interpreter. You know what they're like some times.:rolleyes:

I would suggest you might not want to believe what you supervisor tells you from now on. At least look things up for yourself because he/she is wrong. Plain and simple, being a college official does not mean you automatically know the rules. Just like high school basketball, officials take many paths to get to where they are. Unfortunately, many of them can get to a high level without knowing the rules and/or "gasp" being able to officiate.

Your supervisor is about two years behind in his rules knowledge.

Wouldn't they be false double-fouls though?
Case Book Pg. 80 Rule 10.3.8

Um, yeah....:confused:

It's a false double foul consisting of a common foul called on a team A player followed by a double technical foul on a player from each team. As such, it gets handled the exact way that's been posted so far.

I must be missing the point that you're trying to make. Could you clarify?

There is a false double foul, the second half of which is a double foul (T's on both A2 and B2 for "exchanging greetings"). How does that change the ruling?

Maybe the difference in the situation we went over is that they were 2 FLAGRANT T's, and not just two technicals. Here is the exact situation they gave us in our Meeting.

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. A Flagrant T is called on B #12, and B #12 is ejected. Before the fouls are reported, Team A #32 (not player who was fouled) shoves disqualified B #12. A Flagrant T is called, and A #32 is also ejected.

Answer-
The situation is a false double-foul (the second of which occurs befoer the clock is started following the first). And since a false double foul carries its own penalty-we would shoot two free throws fore each team and then Team B would take the ball out at the divison line

So you would: (administer penalties in order the fouls occured)
Shoot personal foul FT by A #42
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team A
Shoot Technical Foul FT by Team B
Take the ball out at the division line by Team B

Um, yeah.......:confused:

That's a false double foul but it's a different situation entirely. You handle it exactly the same way as you handle the situation in the original post of this thread..i.e. you penalize each foul in the order that they occur. In your case you've got a foul followed by a false double foul. In the OP there is just a false double foul. The difference is that in your situation, the official ruled that that the technical fouls by B12 and A32 weren't committed at approximately the same time and thus didn't meet the definition of a double foul. Iow, apples and oranges from the original situation posted.

I still fail to see what point you're trying to make.

How is the situation different? In his case, you have a rebounding foul, then two technicals. I don't see the difference, other than the Flagrant T's. Can you clarify the difference for me please?

In the case that you posted, the official ruled that the flagrant technical fouls did NOT occur at the same time. They were different plays iow. They were sequential, not together. If he hadda ruled that they occurred at approximately the same time, then they would have been a double technical foul as per NFHS rule 4-19-8(b). He didn't rule that the technical fouls occurred at the same time, so they fall under NFHS rule 4-19-9 instead.

The situation that you posted is completely different than the original post of this thread, and as such is covered by a different rule.

It has nothing to do with the fouls being flagrant. Compare your play (above) to a very similar play:

Team A #42 is fouled in b/c (A is in double bonus). Team B #12 who committed the foul, shoves fouled player from Team A #43. At the same time A43 shoves B12 back. A Flagrant T is called on B #12 and on A43 and both players are ejected.

Ruling:

No FTs are shot for the double T.

A42 shoots two FTs with players on the line and the ball remains in play after the second FT.

See the difference?

Jurassic Referee,

No disrespect intended, but my supervisor is bar none the best rules based official that I know of be it high school rules or college rules. I trust his knowledge completely.

John, if your supervisor is the best rules based official in your area, then you have a <b>major, major</b> problem, rules-wise imo.

Your supervisor is unequivocally and completely wrong, by the very explicit rules already cited. Your supervisor would be wise to send this play into the NFHS office and get their ruling on it. Your supervisor would also be wise to send this play into the NCAA office and get their ruling on it also. As it stands right now, your supervisor has the unique distinction of being totally and completely wrong in two different rulesets. And, unfortunately, his followers are drinking the koolaid.

J. Referee,

Thank you for your thoughts. I still disagree, but I do appreciate your thoughts and opinions concerning my original post.

John, quite seriously, I think that you would be wise in this case to check out another source on this one other than the supervisor that you mentioned. Disregard me, but....some of the other officials in this thread who also disagreed with your supervisor are very competent college officials and are also extremely reliable sources when it comes to rules interpretations. I'd sure stop and think myself if they collectively told me that I had a ruling wrong on something.

Just saying.....

The administration of a double T and a double personal are the same. POI.

Case play 4.19.8D deals with a double personal during a free throw. POI, shoot the free throw with everyone lined up.

Case play 4.19.8A (b) deals with a double T (two players fouling each other during a dead ball.) POI is defined the same in either case.

Rule 4-36 clearly states that POI is identical for both situations. Line them up and shoot. No longer do we go to the arrow for double Ts.

What logic is your supervisor using to have different POI for double personals as opposed to double technicals?