Double Foul During Free Throw

[bob jenkins]

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.

Yes, we have discussed this before. The search (I used double foul continuous motion) turned up several such threads. And, almost all of the opinions (including Jurassic's) were that continuous motion did not apply. The opinions were based on the same (and inadequate, imo) references as in this thread.

No definitive case was cited, and no explanation of the apparent conflict between 4-11-2 and 4-11-3 was given, that I could find.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

no explanation of the apparent conflict between 4-11-2 and 4-11-3 was given

How is it a conflict?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How is it a conflict?

One says (paraphrasing, of course): Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.

The other says: Continuous motion does not apply if the offense fouls.

Neither contains the word "only" (as in "only the defense / offense fouls"). Regardless of whether you allow the try to continue, you are "ignoring" one of the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

One says (paraphrasing, of course): Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.

The other says: Continuous motion does not apply if the offense fouls.

Neither contains the word "only" (as in "only the defense / offense fouls"). Regardless of whether you allow the try to continue, you are "ignoring" one of the rules.

What if we look at it this way: Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.
Simple enough. But what if on this play A1 takes 7 steps after he is fouled by B1 and before he releases the ball? If the travel causes the ball to become dead, we are not ignoring the rule which allowed it to remain alive, are we?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What if we look at it this way: Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.
Simple enough. But what if on this play A1 takes 7 steps after he is fouled by B1 and before he releases the ball? If the travel causes the ball to become dead, we are not ignoring the rule which allowed it to remain alive, are we?

Then that's not continuous motion. And, it's not the same play (it's more akin to a "false double foul" then to a "double foul.")

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then that's not continuous motion. And, it's not the same play (it's more akin to a "false double foul" then to a "double foul.")

Okay, so your point is that this is one thing followed by the other, as opposed to two things happening at once. Granted. My point is that when one rule says ball is dead and one rule says ball remains alive, the ball is dead rule trumps the ball remains alive rule unless a specific exception is noted, which, in this case, as far as I know, there is not.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

One says (paraphrasing, of course): Continuous motion applies if the defense fouls.

The other says: Continuous motion does not apply if the offense fouls.

Neither contains the word "only" (as in "only the defense / offense fouls"). Regardless of whether you allow the try to continue, you are "ignoring" one of the rules.

Even without an explict, direct case, basic logic comes in here...

A1 has started a try. B2 fouls A2....continuous motion on. A1 fouls B1 before releasing the shot. Is The same logic that says continuous motion applies when a teammate fouls also suggest that continuous motion applies so that A1 can complete the shot in this case. However, we know that any infraction by A1 kills the ball...even though the continuous motion rule says A1 gets to complete the shot....but that is assuming there is not another complicating infraction. Its not mentioned, but such things are always implied in several rules.

All possible cases are not cited in the case book (the book would be 1000 pages if so) but it is very clear that offensive infractions always kill the ball if the try has not been released (and sometimes after).



Repeating the cite by Nev..

4.19.8 SITUATION D: A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and-one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-9)

If that's not definitive, we might as well burn to books since they're useless.

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even without an explict, direct case, basic logic comes in here...


All possible cases are not cited in the case book (the book would be 1000 pages if so) but it is very clear that offensive infractions always kill the ball if the try has not been released (and sometimes after).



Repeating the cite by Nev..

4.19.8 SITUATION D: A1 has possession of the ball and is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation when A4 and B4 are whistled for a double foul. RULING: A4 and B4 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. A1 receives the ball to attempt the one-and-one free throw with the lane spaces properly occupied. (4-36-2b; 7-5-9)

If that's not definitive, we might as well burn to books since they're useless.

Wow!! Thanks, all y'all. Cameron, I found this case play after I posted the question, but wasn't about to step in the middle of this. It's been fun.
barryb

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by cropduster

Wow!! Thanks, all y'all. Cameron, I found this case play after I posted the question, but wasn't about to step in the middle of this. It's been fun.
barryb

Did you miss the part of the case play that said "about to attempt"? It didn't say "was attempting". Iow, the FT shooter hasn't started the "try". No continuous motion. That case play is completely irrelevant to the play being discussed. Apples and oranges.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you miss the part of the case play that said "about to attempt"? It didn't say "was attempting". Iow, the FT shooter hasn't started the "try". No continuous motion. That case play is completely irrelevant to the play being discussed. Apples and oranges.

Wow!!! Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. I don't suppose you have anything definitive to back up that definition.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you miss the part of the case play that said "about to attempt"? It didn't say "was attempting". Iow, the FT shooter hasn't started the "try". No continuous motion. That case play is completely irrelevant to the play being discussed. Apples and oranges.

Since the foul by the teammate of the shooter causes the ball to become dead, wouldn't the ruling be the same whether the try had started or not? I thought no continuous motion is what I was arguing for.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, almost all of the opinions (including Jurassic's) were that continuous motion did not apply. The opinions were based on the same (and inadequate, imo) references as in this thread.

Gee, I guess that you've changed Jurassic's mind. I also agree that the rules references simply aren't definitive.