Double Foul During Free Throw

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[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 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.

[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?

[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.