did we get this right-mutifouls question
 

B1 fouls A1 (A is in the double bonus)- foul called. During the Dead ball B1 pushes A1. technical foul called Players seperate- while Ref is reporting fouls- A1 and B1 fight- FlagerantTechnical fouls called on A1 and B1- both players disqualified.....

Lane cleared
1. player fouled shoots the double bonus
2 lane cleared A shoots the technical
3 A gets the ball at Mid court....
4. A1 and B1 disqualified


the question seemed to be since the last foul was a double technical for fighting--- should you go with the arrow or since the fighting fouls canceled each other ,do you go with the last point of interruption.

thanks
stew in Va

It appears you handled it correctly - except that the way you have worded it a disqualified player (A1) attempted his free throws. A1 and B1 should have been disqualified immediately, and then A1's substitute should have attempted the free throws.

1. A1 and B1 dq'd
2. sub for A1 shoots the double bonus
3. any Team A players shoots the T
4. Team A inbounds at midcourt opposite the table as part of B1s T??

Actually A1 replacement did shoot the foul
thanks
stew in Va

The fighting fouls comprise a double flagrant technical, and the penalty would be DQ and POI, which I believe because of the succeeding foul calls would be A throw-in at midcourt.

All double personal fouls and double technical fouls are POI, which would only involve the AP arrow if there were no clear team control.

Edited to correct for my complete inability to read ;)

So if you go in order:

1) shoot the double bonus w/ A1's sub

2) shoot the two T's w/ any member from A

3) double technical would then go to the AP to see who got the ball at midcourt. Would that be right???

A double technical is POI. So would only go to the arrow if we're unclear who should have possession of the ball. In this case, I believe A gets the ball for a midcourt throw-in as a result of the first T.

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.

I can't make heads or tails out of this explanation, Nevada? Could you please spell it out in more detail? Are you talking about Fed? I don't get you at all!

All he's saying is that the POI isn't the half-court throw-in, but actually the administration of the free-throws. It doesn't change anything about the process, but knowing what POI really means and how it's applied can make a difference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.