Double Foul During Free Throw

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Did you actually mean: if A1 makes the final free throw, then it’s B’s throw-in at the baseline?

Yes, if the shot is made B's throw-in anywhere along the baseline.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unless the free throw is missed; then play will resume with the rebound.

Correct, I should have made that clear too.

[truerookie]

WHat's not clear (to me) is what the POI is if it's during the try.[/QUOTE]

Bob, wouldn't we go to the arrow since there is no control when the ball in the air? no player or team control

[Adam]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Bob, wouldn't we go to the arrow since there is no control when the ball in the air? no player or team control

Only if the shot is missed. If the shot is made, POI is B's ball on the endline.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Bob, wouldn't we go to the arrow since there is no control when the ball in the air? no player or team control

Only if the shot is missed. If the shot is made, POI is B's ball on the endline.[/QUOTE]

That's what I thought. Thanks

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, it says that. It (4-11-2) also says that continuous motion applies if there is a foul by the defense. We had a foul by both. Which rule applies?

.........if a teammate fouls.......before the ball is in flight. The ball becomes dead immediately.

Unless there is an exception to this specified somewhere, don't we have to go with this part?

The foul by the defense did not cause the ball to become dead, but the foul by the teammate did.

[Back In The Saddle]

I disagree with the logic for keeping the free throw try alive. Rather than try to decide which rule has precedence, I think you apply both. The ball is not dead based on the foul by the defense; However, the ball is dead based on the foul by the offense before the try is released. Still alive + dead = dead.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Still alive + dead = dead.

Could the ball considered in a state of half-life then?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Could the ball considered in a state of half-life then?

Now we have to bring carbon-dating into the equation? I'm not qualified for this stuff.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Now we have to bring carbon-dating into the equation? I'm not qualified for this stuff.

Yes, I've heard that most of your dates are not with carbon-based life forms.

Oh -- new case 4.19.8C provides an example of a double foul that does not cause the ball to become dead (even thought the "offensive" part of the double foul would normally cause the ball to become dead). It's not definitive to the OP, though.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, I've heard that most of your dates are not with carbon-based life forms.

Oh -- new case 4.19.8C provides an example of a double foul that does not cause the ball to become dead (even thought the "offensive" part of the double foul would normally cause the ball to become dead). It's not definitive to the OP, though.

Since I will not have the new case book for a couple more weeks, would you be kind enough to post this case? I would like to see it, even if it's not really definitive to the OP.

[Vinski]

To calculate whether the ball will be considered “dead” or not, apply this simple formula…

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the ball compared to the amount in living tissue ( say JR?), and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

If T is greater that 0, the ball is not dead.

Of course, you need to do this calculation fairly quickly and then blow the whistle accordingly or the coach might nag you for a late whistle.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, I've heard that most of your dates are not with carbon-based life forms.

Are you suggesting that it goes further than six pack of beer and a chicken?

[Splute]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, I've heard that most of your dates are not with carbon-based life forms.

Oh -- new case 4.19.8C provides an example of a double foul that does not cause the ball to become dead (even thought the "offensive" part of the double foul would normally cause the ball to become dead). It's not definitive to the OP, though.

In my feeble mind 4.19.8D seems more related; however, this op states "in the act of shooting" where this case play clearly states "has possession and is about to attempt..." In this case play it is POI and resume with FT. But does being in the Act of Shooting change anything with a double foul?

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Since I will not have the new case book for a couple more weeks, would you be kind enough to post this case? I would like to see it, even if it's not really definitive to the OP.

4.19.8 Sit C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 ater the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charge foul on A1. The try is successful. RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try and the goal is scored. Play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.