did we get this right-mutifouls question

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not precisely right, but close enough as the administration is correct.
Strictly speaking in this case the POI is the awarding of the first of the two FTs that are due to A1's substitute because of the personal foul by B1.

Since a team is entitled to a FT, per 4-36-2b the game is picked up from there and then the rest of the fouls are penalized in order. As the final foul to be penalized is the intentional technical foul (for the dead ball contact) by B1, Team A will be awarded a throw-in at the division line following those FTs.

The problem I see with this is order of enforcement. 8-7 tells us, without exception, that "Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred."

So the administration of the fighting T's does not occur until after that for the personal foul and the first technical. There are rules that tell us we must replace the DQ'd players before proceeding with the first free throw. But that does not constitute administering the penalty for the double T.

4-36-2b is the proper POI option for this situation.

b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.

But when considered in concert with 8-7, that leaves the concluding phrase of 4-36-2b as the simplest possibility. At this point the only activity remaining is the throw-in due to the first technical, and team A "is entitled to such."

I think that makes more sense that saying that the POI was (emphasis on the past-tenseness of this argument) a few free throws ago. I can think of no other situation in which we would deem the POI to be a time that occurred previously in the game.

In the end, you are right that the end result is the same.

I've got to run and can't immediately think of any other cases that would be useful in thinking about this. If you've got one, I'd like to hear it.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've got to run and can't immediately think of any other cases that would be useful in thinking about this. If you've got one, I'd like to hear it.

A1 is fouled and A is in the double bonus. After the play, A2 and B2 fight. Proper administration?

A2 and B2 are charged with flagrant technicals and disqualified. Then the game proceeds with A1 shooting the double bonus with players on the lane.

If we waited until after the fouls were administered in order to apply POI, we'd clear the lane and then have a POI after the 2nd free throw.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

A1 is fouled and A is in the double bonus. After the play, A2 and B2 fight. Proper administration?

A2 and B2 are charged with flagrant technicals and disqualified. Then the game proceeds with A1 shooting the double bonus with players on the lane.

If we waited until after the fouls were administered in order to apply POI, we'd clear the lane and then have a POI after the 2nd free throw.

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The problem I see with this is order of enforcement. 8-7 tells us, without exception, that "Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred."

You hit upon a good point. One which the Fed has yet to realize. When they changed the penalty for double/simultaneous fouls and added the POI definition back in 2005-06, they failed to also alter 8-7.
8-7 needs to be amended to contain, "except for double and simultaneous fouls."

The fact is that in order to properly enforce the POI rule, we must ignore 8-7 in these situations. Post #12 by jdw demonstrates why.

PS rainmaker, yes, I am talking about NFHS rules. The real POI is how we make the ball live again.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS rainmaker, yes, I am talking about NFHS rules. The real POI is how we make the ball live again.

So why wouldn't the POI be the inbound at the midcourt line for the T against B? I don't understand why you said the admin was right but the reason was wrong.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

So why wouldn't the POI be the inbound at the midcourt line for the T against B?

Because the game was interrupted before the free throws were attempted. So the point of "interruption" is before the free throws. So when we resume at the POI, we resume with the free throws for the original foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Because the game was interrupted before the free throws were attempted. So the point of "interruption" is before the free throws. So when we resume at the POI, we resume with the free throws for the original foul.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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

Precisely.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.