Double Foul During Free Throw

[Adam]

I don't think this case play works here, as Bob indicated it might not.
1. In the OP, the ball has not been released. In the case play, it has.
2. If the ball had been released for the free throw, there's no question it should count.
3. Since the question is what happens when there's a double foul between B1 and A2 after A1 has started his shooting motion but before it's released, I think the differences from the case play negate its usefulness on this.
4. The case play is using the fact that the only thing that can cause a released try to become dead before it is naturally completed is a player control foul. Since the free throw situation does not involve a differentiation of player control foul from team control foul, it's not relevant.

Unless something specifically states otherwise, I have to think the foul by a teammate causes the ball to become dead unless the try has already been released.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I think "most" is a bit strong here, Bob.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

4. The case play is using the fact that the only thing that can cause a released try to become dead before it is naturally completed is a player control foul.

Doesn't a violation by a team mate of the shooter cause a released ball for a try to become dead as well? Not trying to nit pick, just clarifying.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Doesn't a violation by a team mate of the shooter cause a released ball for a try to become dead as well? Not trying to nit pick, just clarifying.

I'm tempted to say, "shut up."
But I won't.
You're right.
My point still stands, though.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Doesn't a violation by a team mate of the shooter cause a released ball for a try to become dead as well? Not trying to nit pick, just clarifying.

If we are talking about a double foul, then I do not believe it does. At least from reading all the cases under the "double foul". Otherwise I would agree.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm tempted to say, "shut up."

Funny, I get that a lot.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Splute

If we are talking about a double foul, then I do not believe it does. At least from reading all the cases under the "double foul". Otherwise I would agree.

I agree if we are talking about a double foul, but I mentioned a violation, such as swinging elbows or running OOB to avoid a screen or box out.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Vinski

I agree if we are talking about a double foul, but I mentioned a violation, such as swinging elbows or running OOB to avoid a screen or box out.

Of course, I apologize... one track mind. Note to self; read more carefully. This has been a very interesting discussion from something I originally thought was very simple.

[just another ref]

Is the wording significant on 4-11-3 in that it says ....if a teammate fouls...the ball becomes dead immediately. ?

This as opposed to .....if a team control foul is committed ......the ball immediately becomes dead.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is the wording significant on 4-11-3 in that it says ....if a teammate fouls...the ball becomes dead immediately. ?

This as opposed to .....if a team control foul is committed ......the ball immediately becomes dead.

Now you're just arguing grammantics.

[Nevadaref]

We have discussed this play before.

A1 starts a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball when A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

The correct ruling is that continuous motion does NOT apply and the game is resumed with the POI.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We have discussed this play before.

A1 starts a try for goal, but has not yet released the ball when A2 and B2 commit a double foul.

The correct ruling is that continuous motion does NOT apply and the game is resumed with the POI.

Sigh.....

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

[Nevadaref]

Sigh.....

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

The already cited 4-11-3.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

No, the search function on this forum rarely returns what I want. I just end up wasting my time. You'll have to locate it yourself.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh.....

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

Btw, could you also point me to the previous discussion?

Do you say that 4-11-3 is not applicable here? Do you have a rule citation, definitive or otherwise, to support that idea?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Do you say that 4-11-3 is not applicable here? Do you have a rule citation, definitive or otherwise, to support that idea?

Both of your responses above were exactly what I figured they'd turn out to be. How about you and Nevada discuss the fine points between yourselves for another 115 pages or so. For some strange reason, I just don't think that it would serve any useful purpose to respond further to either of you.

Have fun, y'all.