College Ruling Please

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My understanding is you either do POI or "order of occurance," not both. In effect, doing it your way would be a hybrid of POI and OOC.

But i am referring to POI only as the method of putting the ball back in play whereas order of occurence would be the order in which you would administer the penalties..aren't they two seperate issues? Isn't the POI on the direct T (which came second) ball at division line since that was the result of the intentional T (which came first)? My understanding on POI was that it is whatever it is at the time when the foul occurs...in this case POI at the time of the direct T was you shooting the intentional T and giving B the ball at division line...unless I am totally missing this...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by kbilla

But i am referring to POI only as the method of putting the ball back in play whereas order of occurence would be the order in which you would administer the penalties..aren't they two seperate issues? Isn't the POI on the direct T (which came second) ball at division line since that was the result of the intentional T (which came first)? My understanding on POI was that it is whatever it is at the time when the foul occurs...in this case POI at the time of the direct T was you shooting the intentional T and giving B the ball at division line...unless I am totally missing this...

You are correct.

Peace

[Adam]

Maybe where i'm getting hung up is I thought with a direct T, you administer it right away and then go to POI, which is the free throws or throwin.

With a personal foul followed by a direct T, you shoot the T first and then the personal foul free throws.

Again, I realize this is nit picking since it really doesn't matter with the T which you shoot first.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe where i'm getting hung up is I thought with a direct T, you administer it right away and then go to POI, which is the free throws or throwin.

With a personal foul followed by a direct T, you shoot the T first and then the personal foul free throws.

Again, I realize this is nit picking since it really doesn't matter with the T which you shoot first.

But does it matter as to who is allowed to attempt the FT's on the offended team? This gets back to my question a few posts ago...If you look in the foul/penalty chart at the back of the NCAA rules/interps, some T's the penalty is "Two free throws" and some are "Two free throws to any member of the offended team"...maybe I am reading too much in to this, but is this meant to infer that on a direct T, since it doesn't say "...to any member of the offended team", that the offended player must attempt? Further to that, who the heck is the "offended player" when a coach curses the official?

[JRutledge]

In NCAA ball, the same shooter must shoot both FTs (8-2-3). And all Ts are still two shoots. You are thinking the NBA.

Peace

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In NCAA ball, the same shooter must shoot both FTs (8-2-3). And all Ts are still two shoots. You are thinking the NBA.

Peace

But can any player of the offended team shoot the free throws (both of a pair)? This is where this table at the back of the rules/interps throws me off, they make it sound like with certain types of T's, a certain player must attempt....could just be some bad editing...I have assumed that any player on the offended team could shoot them, just wanted to be sure...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In NCAA ball, the same shooter must shoot both FTs (8-2-3). And all Ts are still two shoots. You are thinking the NBA.

Peace

I was hoping no one would read that post. As soon as I posted it, I realized my error (that I was thinking NBA). I deleted it, but you're just to quick on the draw, Jeff.

[JRutledge]

In both NCAA and NF rules, any player can shoot FTs on a T. The difference with the NCAA, the player which is chosen by the captain or the head coach must attempt both FTs (all Ts are two shoots). So if you have a dead ball T, that involves contact, according to 8-2-3 anyone can attempt those FTs. So if you call an Intentional Technical, anyone can shoot those FTs.

BTW guys, all of these descriptions are in the back of the NCAA Book on page 149-153.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was hoping no one would read that post. As soon as I posted it, I realized my error (that I was thinking NBA). I deleted it, but you're just to quick on the draw, Jeff.

Almost as quick as Bhuck Elics.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In both NCAA and NF rules, any player can shoot FTs on a T. The difference with the NCAA, the player which is chosen by the captain or the head coach must attempt both FTs (all Ts are two shoots). So if you have a dead ball T, that involves contact, according to 8-2-3 anyone can attempt those FTs. So if you call an Intentional Technical, anyone can shoot those FTs.

BTW guys, all of these descriptions are in the back of the NCAA Book on page 149-153.

Peace

Great thanks, so I have that right...do you see what I mean though on pages 149-153, the table there? Under Penalty, why for (Men) Direct Technical is the penalty just "Two free throws", whereas for (Men) Intentional Technical, the penalty is "Two free throws to any member of the offended team"? Why the distinction, makes it seem as if the administration of the penalty is different?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Almost as quick as Bhuck Elics.

I thought that went without saying.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Great thanks, so I have that right...do you see what I mean though on pages 149-153, the table there? Under Penalty, why for (Men) Direct Technical is the penalty just "Two free throws", whereas for (Men) Intentional Technical, the penalty is "Two free throws to any member of the offended team"? Why the distinction, makes it seem as if the administration of the penalty is different?

I think they want it to be made clear that this is not a regular foul where only the fouled player shoots the FT. If you do not make that distinction, then someone will require A2 to shoot the FTs which is not consistent with the rule.

Remember the same applies in the NF level outside of the fact that the selected shooter does not have to shoot both FTs. You can bring in a sub (NF Rules) to shoot in each T FTs. For example if you have 6 T FTs, you can sub in 6 different players to shoot each FT.

Peace

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think they want it to be made clear that this is not a regular foul where only the fouled player shoots the FT. If you do not make that distinction, then someone will require A2 to shoot the FTs which is not consistent with the rule.

Remember the same applies in the NF level outside of the fact that the selected shooter does not have to shoot both FTs. You can bring in a sub (NF Rules) to shoot in each T FTs. For example if you have 6 T FTs, you can sub in 6 different players to shoot each FT.

Peace

Thanks JRut...I understood the hs rule, it was just the wording in that darn table that had me second guessing the NCAA procedure...luckily haven't had a T yet in a college game, but good to know I would have gotten it right

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Great thanks, so I have that right...do you see what I mean though on pages 149-153, the table there? Under Penalty, why for (Men) Direct Technical is the penalty just "Two free throws", whereas for (Men) Intentional Technical, the penalty is "Two free throws to any member of the offended team"? Why the distinction, makes it seem as if the administration of the penalty is different?

I think it's due to the fact that only on intentional Ts is there a player who's directly fouled. Therefore, the committee added the "by any player" to this penalty rather than subtracted it from the penalty for direct Ts.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think it's due to the fact that only on intentional Ts is there a player who's directly fouled. Therefore, the committee added the "by any player" to this penalty rather than subtracted it from the penalty for direct Ts.

DING DING DING I think we have a winner...that makes sense....not sure why that bothered me, but it did!