Resumption of Play????

[jdw3018]

Mark, how do you interpret the following in 4-36-2:

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

It seems to me that A is entitled to its free throw, so we go there. I also see no reason why the fact that this is a false double foul changes anything. Each foul carries its own penalty. The penlaty for the double technical portion of the foul is a technical foul to each player and then resumption at the POI which is the entitled free throw.

I also disagree that the POI causes more problems than it solves. Perhaps the rule needs to be more clearly worded, but if you simply look at POI as the point of interruption, any double foul becomes extremely easy to administer.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Maybe this is a play that needs to be addressed by the NFHS Rules Committee.

Naw, you're the only one in the world that holds that view of the situation. You think that might have told you something right there.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Naw, you're the only one in the world that holds that view of the situation. You think that might have told you something right there.

No. He's not the only one. But my posting on this topic in a previous thread was so long-winded as to make even MTD despair of ever reaching the end!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

No. He's not the only one. But my posting on this topic in a previous thread was so long-winded as to make even MTD despair of ever reaching the end!

True. BITS and I had a brief exchange on this point about a month ago. (Perhaps he can locate the thread and post the link.)
We agreed that the two rules do conflict. Of course, this will happen when a new rule is inserted into an existing rule system such as was done with POI. Sometimes not all of the existing language is modified to mesh with the new change. That is simply the case here. The intent of the NFHS committee is clear--employ the POI rule.

MTD, where you are messing up logically is that you are willing to employ 4-36-2a, but not 4-36-2b. There is no way to defend that. You are trying to pick and choose what rules to apply and one cannot officiate that way.
Stated more specifically, in your example in which the FT shooter has been given the ball and has control of it when the double T is called, that would still be a false double foul since the clock hasn't started between the two calls. The fact that the ball became live doesn't matter. As you know FDFs do not have to come in the same dead ball period. It is the clock that matters. Check the definition in 4-19-9. So in this situation why are you not insisting that we enforce the penalties for the FDF in order and go to the AP arrow? I find it strange that you want to use the POI rule (4-36-2a) in this case, but not in the situation presented in the OP (which would warrant using 4-36-2b).

You simply are not correct about this.

[Daryl H. Long]

MTD is wrong.

4-36-2(b) is very specific. Not ambiguaous nor is there any reason for NF to clarify anything.

Point of Interruption = shoot FT's with players lined up and go from there.

4-36-2(b)
4-36-2(b)

Mark, as punishment for your lapse in thinking underline the appropriate rule in your rule book. In case no one has cited it...4-36-2(b).

[BktBallRef]

Mark, you are totally and completely wrong. We had this exact same play last Friday night. A1 is fouled going to the basket by B1. A1 and B1 then get into a jawing match. Double T.

Read the rule you quoted.

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

A1 is entitled to 2 FTs. Play is resumed at that point.

Sorry dude, you're wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Mark, as punishment for your lapse in thinking underline the appropriate rule in your rule book.

Actually, we'd rather you just give him a smack upside the head instead.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Actually, we'd rather you just give him a smack upside the head instead.

Wish granted.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True. BITS and I had a brief exchange on this point about a month ago. (Perhaps he can locate the thread and post the link.)
We agreed that the two rules do conflict. Of course, this will happen when a new rule is inserted into an existing rule system such as was done with POI. Sometimes not all of the existing language is modified to mesh with the new change. That is simply the case here. The intent of the NFHS committee is clear--employ the POI rule.

MTD, where you are messing up logically is that you are willing to employ 4-36-2a, but not 4-36-2b. There is no way to defend that. You are trying to pick and choose what rules to apply and one cannot officiate that way.
Stated more specifically, in your example in which the FT shooter has been given the ball and has control of it when the double T is called, that would still be a false double foul since the clock hasn't started between the two calls. The fact that the ball became live doesn't matter. As you know FDFs do not have to come in the same dead ball period. It is the clock that matters. Check the definition in 4-19-9. So in this situation why are you not insisting that we enforce the penalties for the FDF in order and go to the AP arrow? I find it strange that you want to use the POI rule (4-36-2a) in this case, but not in the situation presented in the OP (which would warrant using 4-36-2b).

You simply are not correct about this.

Here it is: did we get this right-mutifouls question

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Wish granted.

From the other thread that just got posted above, Mark isn't the only one that needs a smack upside the head.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From the other thread that just got posted above, Mark isn't the only one that needs a smack upside the head.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's my standard 2-man pregame. Short, sweet, to the point.

[Da Official]

Great topic! Great discussion!