Double Foul During Free Throw
 

Here's another question from the La. 07-08 study guide:

147. While A1 is in the act of shooting a free throw and prior to releasing the ball, a double personal foul is called. A-1 continues the motion and scores. Official disallows the free throw and re-administers A-1's free throw with players occupying the marded lane spaces. Play continues from the administration of the free thow(s). This ruling is correct. T or F

I've looked for this in the case book and could use ya'lls help. Since a member of team A fouled, shouldn't the ball become dead? Or, does the double foul offset that?

Thanks,
barryb

The correct response would be true. The shoot was not release when the foul (s) occurred. So the FT will be readministered and play resume as normal. B's throw-in anywhere along the baseline.

If I see any "ya'lls" around here, I'll ask them to help you. What's a "ya'll" anyway? :rolleyes:

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

I think the official was incorrect. Count the basket and let B have the ball anywhere along the end-line for the throw-in.

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

I agree with Bob. I think this is covered in the new Case Book under continuous motion. But I do not have them with me to check.

I have the new case book here and there doesn't seem to be anything under continuous motion.

4-11-3: Continuous motion does not apply if a teammate fouls after a player has started a try for a goal and before the ball is in flight. The ball becomes dead immediately.

Unless there is an exception to this somewhere for free throws and/or double fouls, I say the answer to the op is true.

The only thing that disappoints me is that cropduster doesn't know where to put the apostrophe in y'all.

Years ago I attended a trade show in Nashville. I learned that the plural of y'all is all-y'all. :)

When I was a kid growing up on the South Side of Chicago, we had a kid who moved to our neighborhood from Georgia. He said "y'all". We thought he was speaking Martian or something. Oh yeah - he also put ketchup on hot dogs. At least he did until we beat him up a few times. ;)

Thanks, I was reading it last night while watching the Cowboys and I could not remember if it stated the ball became dead in this situation or not. I know I read over the continous motion definition and maybe that is what stuck in my head. I will get my books when I go home for lunch and see what I can find as well.

Actually I think singulars and plurals are kinda muddled in the south. I find that I often say "We'll see y'all later," even when it's just me talking to one person. I suppose this might be the southern version of "My people will be in touch with your people." I, for the most part, have no "people."

Disagree, the ball should become dead on the double foul. Now, if the double foul occurred after the release, then you go POI, and continue on.

I'm a liitle fussy on this event occurring on the F/T. Certainly, if we have an offensive foul, whether before or after the release, we don't count the bucket. If we have a defensive foul, whether before or after the release, count the bucket, continue on. Now, we have a doulbe foul and before the release. Good question.

I would say the answer is true, disallow the made FT, go POI, shoot another FT with everyone on the line. Continous motion got nothing to do with it. Just my opinion.....

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?

6-7-7 can (I think) also be read both ways.

It's clear from the cases that if the try has not started, the POI is still the FT. And, if the ball is in the air, the POI is the result of the FT. WHat's not clear (to me) is what the POI is if it's during the try.

Okay, have my case book in hand. I was reading under Continuous Motion 6.7 COMMENT ........ The continuous-motion rule applies to a free-throw try as well....... However, I can only find counting a score when the defense fouls. Since A1 also fouled (double foul) I recant my position and believe this ruling to be true.... readminister.... I enjoying this type of dialogue...thanks.

Yup, and 6-7EXCEPTION(c) says "the opponent of a player". There is no mention of any foul combination that includes the foul by "the opponent of the player" that negates that statement. That's why I agree with you also.

As to the POI, heckuva question. I'll think about it in, oh maybe, 5 innings or so.:)

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

Correct, I should have made that clear too.;)

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

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

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

.........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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.....:rolleyes:

Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?

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

Sigh.....:rolleyes:
The already cited 4-11-3.
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.

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.

The above cited rule, this logical argument

and these two case plays convince me.

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)

6.7 SITUATION C: Under what circumstances does the ball remain live when a foul occurs just prior to the ball being in flight during a try or tap? RULING: The ball would ordinarily become dead at once, but it remains live if the foul is by the defense, and this foul occurs after A1 has started the try or tap for goal and time does not expire before the ball is in flight. The foul by the defense may be either personal or technical and the exception to the rule applies to field goal tries and taps and free-throw tries. (4-11; 4-41-1)

Your approach is getting really old. How about posting a reason the statement is not valid rather implying you don't believe a post and ask them to prove it. If you have reason to believe it untrue, give something more intelligent than "Sigh... Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?". Offer something useful....something that couters the claim.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Got a definitive rules citation to back that up?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../smilielol.gif

And your reading comprehension seems to be lacking also. If you go back and read what I posted, I agreed with Bob Jenkins that there <b>DOESN'T</b> seem to be a <b>DEFINITIVE</b> rules citation because R4-11-2 and R4-11-3 seem to say completely different things, and R6-7-7 and EXCEPTION(c) can be interpreted differently also. I then agreed with the way that Bob interpreted the language.

Imo, there is NO <b>definitive</b> rules citation to cite, and I have stated such. The language of the rules conflict and is hazy in a situation when both teams commit a foul, and thus can be interpreted differently. Iow, this is <b>another</b> situation where people interpreting the existing language differently could end up either being right or wrong. I recognize that. You won't. Quite simply, what I won't state is that I am categorically 100% right in <b>my</b> opinion, like you people are doing.

The lack of a <b>definitive</b> ruling doesn't seem to stop the infallible ones on this forum from stating that their freaking <b>opinion</b> of which rule is applicable is the <b>ONLY</b> true <b>opinion</b> possible. That's consistent with your collective past postings also, and it sureashell has got old with me too.

I still agree with Bob Jenkins' take and I still refuse to debate the reasons why any further with you and the others like you. It's pointless.

Yes, I am old. I am not so addled though that I'll accept <b>"opinions"</b> as being gospel though. Note- that applies to your's and Camron's <b>opinion</b>.

4-11-2 and 6-7-7 (c) both refer to a foul by an opponent of the player who has started a try. 4-11-3 refers to a foul by a teammate of the player who has started a try. These plays refer to different situations, so why would they not say "completely different things."


4.19.8 C, the other play cited, refers to a try which has been released, so I don't see that it could be applicable here, either.


Having reviewed all this, 4-11-2 " .....if a teammate fouls......before the ball is in flight.....ball becomes dead immediately...." does indeed seem definitive to me.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Bob,
Perhaps this will satisfy the definitive phrasing that you seek.

1. circumstances is plural and the question therefore is set up to provide ALL of the circumstances in which the ball is to remain live, not just some of them. If something, such as a double foul, isn't listed in here, then the ball doesn't remain live.

2. The foul by the defense is singular as are all other references to a foul in this ruling. That is evidence that the intent of the rules makers is for continuous motion to only apply when there is a foul by the defensive team. Nothing else is included in this ruling.

Lastly if we understand the spirit and intent of the rule. It is to prevent the defense from fouling someone away from the ball everytime that the offensive team's best shooter gets the ball and is about to try for goal. That was deemed an unfair tactic, so the continuous motion rule was adopted to counteract this.

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 "<b>about</b> to attempt"? It <b>didn't</b> 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.

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.