Okay, so the discrepancy is that POI conflicts with administering the fouls in order?

Precisely. :)

Well, I can solve that one easily. Just "adjust" the definition of POI include the administration being part of the order of things right behind the foul. So in the OP, we've got 2 fts for A1's sub, 2 fts for any A player, and then oob at divison line for team A since the POI for the double foul was the fts for the T. At least, that's how I'll tell it to the coach who asks nicely.

What do you think of my solution in post #13?

If you read 4-36-2 the way I've been reading it, there is no resolution for POI in this situation. They would need to add in something about playing on after a made or missed free throw, or something like that to cover this situation.

However, setting that aside for the moment, I don't agree that you'd shoot the free throws with the lane cleared. Whether or not to clear the lane (NFHS 8-1-3) is always a forward looking decision, based on whether the ball will be dead after shooting the free throws. There is nothing in the penalty for a double technical that makes the ball dead. Logically, if not exactly by rule, the POI would be to carry on from the end of the free throws.

I can see the disconnect in the rules over this. What changes would fix this?

• Nevada suggested ammending 8-7 to except double fouls and double technicals.
• I would prefer adding a fourth provision to 4-36-2 that says something like: For double personal or double technical fouls, when there are other personal and/or technical fouls involved, enforce all other penalties, in the order the fouls occurred, as if the double personal/technical had not occurred.
• Perhaps 8-6 would need a little tweaking as well?

Any others?

A few thoughts (not necessarily comprising a cohesive argument):

Simply adding an exception doesn't tell us how to properly administer this. It needs to specify exactly what you do with double and simultaneous fouls, and their POI, when combined with other fouls. Are they ignored? Are they enforced first? Are they enforced immediately? Possibly all those options equate to the same thing.

What if you have a series of fouls consisting entirely of simultaneous and double fouls? For instance, A1 fouls B1 as B2 fouls A2 (a simultaneous foul), following which B2 and A2 fight. A little far-fetched as simultaneous fouls are so rarely called, but the rules provide for them and 8-7 needs to handle the possibility.

Honestly, I hesitate to mess with 8-7 for the simple reason that many HS officials struggle with administering complex foul situations. However, most will get it basically right if you can teach them to "penalize the fouls in the order they occurred." If we complicate this rule, I hate to think what would happen.

But if we are going to mess with it, then why not go further. It really is incomplete, and incorrect, as it stands. For example, if I call a common foul (team not in the bonus) followed by a T, I don't actually administer the penalties in the order they occur. First, I report both fouls together (part of the penalty for a foul is the charging of a personal and team foul for each). If, because of the sum total of all fouls committed during the sequence, a player is disqualified, I have him replaced before continuing (in a scenario where a player is otherwise entitled to shoot free throws, he may still be disqualified, and a replacement required, because of a subsequent foul in the series -- that's hardly administering in the order the fouls occurred). Then I skip the remainder of the penalty for the common foul, the throw-in, altogether (I'm not even sure that's in the rules; it's just how we do it). Finally I administer the remainder of the penalty for the T, complete with throw-in. We'd say that's correct by 8-7; but really that's not what 8-7 says at all.

So if we're going to tweak 8-7, let's give it a complete overhaul and bring it into line with reality. Change it to say something like: When more than one foul is to be administered, the official(s) shall:
a. Report all fouls in the order they occurred.
b. Require disqualified players to be replaced.
c. Administer any free throws in the order the fouls occurred.
d. Resume play with the administration of the last foul that is not a double personal, double technical, or simultaneous foul, otherwise it shall resume from the point of interruption.

All of that is okay with me.
The only thing that I wanted was for you to understand that what you were calling the POI really wasn't the POI. :)

I think I got there :D

I agree with the following (too lazy to look back to see who said it):

1. A1's sub shoots FTs for B1's personal foul
2. A? shoots FTs for B1's T.
3. Ball at division line for team A

Reason: Most rules, unless stated otherwise assume there are no complicating issues. They're not going to spell out all the possible cross-products of the rules. If they did, the book would be thousands of pages. We're expected to understand the intent of the rule. As for POI, it means do what would have been done as if the double/simultaneous foul had not been called.