FT administration sequence
 

I can't find anything in the case book about this.

Now, I know that FT's are administered in the order that they happen, but this scenario has me puzzled:

A1 fouls B1 (non-shooting foul) and B is in the bonus. A1 receives technical foul.

My questions:

Do you clear the lane and just shoot the one FT and allow another if the throw is successful (normal procedure save for the empty lane spaces)...then shoot the technical FT's and give the ball to B?

The thing that throws me off is the bonus situation. If B was in the double bonus, then it's very simple.

Hopefully this didn't get too wordy...

You shoot the FTs in the order the fouls took place.

B1 would shoot the FTs for the bonus with the lane clear. Then you the T with anyone in or out of the game with the lane clear for the T. Then you give the ball back to Team B at the division line opposite the table.

I read a little fast. Corrected now.

Peace

You've got it right - clear the lane, B1 gets his shot. If he makes, he gets his bonus, if not, you move on to the technical shots, then B's ball at mid-court.

Thank you.

You're over thinking it. You had it right.

While I agree with the other answers (even JRuts, given that he misread who fouled and who was fouled), I'm curious as to why this was "easy" for you if it was a "double bonus" [sic] and not easy in the bonus situation.

Like Snaqwells said, I was overthinking it.

If it's double bonus - then it's just the same as if a tech occurs after a shooting foul. It was the 1 and 1 bonus situation that was throwing me a bit. Just overthinking it. This situation hasn't come up in any of my games the past couple of years (this is my 2nd year), I just wondered about it the other night and had some doubt so I came here to clear that up. :)

Some folks might think of the 1-and-1 as being defined by having play begin after a missed first FT. So if the lane is cleared and that couldn't happen, it would seem that you couldn't have a 1-and-1.

What defines the 1-and-1 is getting a bonus shot for making the first. Nothing requires play to begin immediately after a missed first FT, and in some cases (like the OP) it doesn't.

Player control foul.........am I missing something, no free throws other than the two for the tech?

Now you are thinking too much. He did not say there was a PC Foul.

Peace

Nope, but I can see where the confusion comes from - when we describe plays "A" is usually considered the team on offense, so if A1 fouls, it's usually a team-control or player control foul.

In this case, I'm assuming ILRef80 didn't consider that, snce he also used the phrase, "non-shooting foul".

Ok, I'm done thinking for now - I've got a game to go do. ;)

Everyone is not asking a question with rulebook accuracy. And team A is Team A throughout the case play. So it does not mean that every foul created by Team A is with them on offense. For all we know, B1 might have made a quick steal and A1 fouls them. ;)

Peace

And, this could've been happening on a ship crossing the Int'l Date Line...oh, never mind. ;)

I know what the OP meant, you know what the OP meant, someone else didn't, although I understand the reason for the confusion. No biggie.

Now, go referee something! (Unless you've got the night off tonight?)

This is why I am having these stupid conversations right now.

Peace

Well, then I guess I'll leave you to having these conversations with yourself, because I'm outta here. :D

I disagree, A is the synonym for the offense in any printed material that I've read, rules wise. And once B1 steals the ball he becomes A1. Much ado about nothing yet A/B for offense/defense is the common distinction.

You can disagree but that would be wrong. The basketball rulebooks use a similar philosophy as the football rulebook. Even if there is a change of possession in a play, the team still stays Team A or Team B throughout the description or case play. For one thing it would be confusing if you always changed A1 to B1 just because of a possession change. I bet you will not find one example in the rulebook that changes A1 to B1 or Team A to Team B because of who has the ball for the moment.

Also in some plays there is not an "offense" for the respective description. Some of the casebook uses descriptions of things Team B does and there is not mention of who has the ball or who has the ball is not relevant (e.g. Case plays in Rule 3).

This is not a major point, but what you stated is not correct. ;)

Peace

:confused: Yeh what he said :confused: