Resumption of Play????

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD must have bumped his head climbing up into his attic.

The NFHS stopped doing it that way three years ago.

The NFHS now handles this in the same manner as the NCAA.

NFHS R4-S36-A1: "Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10."

NFHS R4-S36-A2: "Play shall be resumed by one of the following:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved."

NFHS R10, Penalty 7: "In the case of a false double foul or false multiple foul, each foul carries its own penalty."


We have a false double foul in the situation. The first foul that occured was the personal foul by B1 against A1. The second foul that occured was the double technical foul by A1 and B1. R10, Penalty 7 tells us that when we have a false double foul, each foul carries its own penalty; that means the fouls are penalized in the order that they occurred and that the ball is put back into play as if the only foul that occured was the last foul in the sequence. The last foul in this sequence was the double technical foul by A1 and B1.

I agree, that the double technical foul by A1 and B1, by definition, is a Point of Interruption. But it is the last foul in a false double foul and because it occured when neither team was in control of the ball when it occured, R4-S36-A2c tells us that the AP Arrow is the method used to put the ball back into play. R4-S36-A2b is not the applicable rule because the double technical foul occured while B1's personal foul was being reported.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R4-S36-A1: "Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10."

NFHS R4-S36-A2: "Play shall be resumed by one of the following:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved."

NFHS R10, Penalty 7: "In the case of a false double foul or false multiple foul, each foul carries its own penalty."


We have a false double foul in the situation. The first foul that occured was the personal foul by B1 against A1. The second foul that occured was the double technical foul by A1 and B1. R10, Penalty 7 tells us that when we have a false double foul, each foul carries its own penalty; that means the fouls are penalized in the order that they occurred and that the ball is put back into play as if the only foul that occured was the last foul in the sequence. The last foul in this sequence was the double technical foul by A1 and B1.

I agree, that the double technical foul by A1 and B1, by definition, is a Point of Interruption. But it is the last foul in a false double foul and because it occured when neither team was in control of the ball when it occured, R4-S36-A2c tells us that the AP Arrow is the method used to put the ball back into play. R4-S36-A2b is not the applicable rule because the double technical foul occured while B1's personal foul was being reported.

MTD, Sr.

Sigh.....

A double technical foul is an infraction of the rules, Mark. Seriously. I wouldn't lie to you.

The double technical foul occurred DURING the free throw activity. Not that it matters anyway, because 4-36-2(b) also states "if a team is entitled to such.". Well, team A is entitled to 2 FT's ,aren't they? 'Splain that one away.

Rule 4-36-2(b) couldn't be more explicit. And you couldn't be more wrong.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agree, that the double technical foul by A1 and B1, by definition, is a Point of Interruption. But it is the last foul in a false double foul and because it occured when neither team was in control of the ball when it occured, R4-S36-A2c tells us that the AP Arrow is the method used to put the ball back into play. R4-S36-A2b is not the applicable rule because the double technical foul occured while B1's personal foul was being reported.

MTD, Sr.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you had jsut mis-read the play. Heaven knows, I've done that often enough.

But, it seems as though you're just mistaken.

See 4.19.8D for a case that's pretty darn close to the OP.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you had jsut mis-read the play. Heaven knows, I've done that often enough.

But, it seems as though you're just mistaken.

See 4.19.8D for a case that's pretty darn close to the OP.

Bob:

In the Casebook Play you reference, A1 already has player control of the ball, hence there is team control of the ball, but in the OP, the official is still reporting B1's personal foul when the double technical foul by A1 and B1 occurs. The game had not yet progressed to free throw activity of B1's personal foul when the double technical foul occurred.


NFHS R10, Penalty 7: "In the case of a false double foul or false multiple foul, each foul carries its own penalty."

NCAA R10-S1, Penalty g: "In the case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul shall carry its own penalty. When one of the fouls is a technical foul, the ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption."


The NFHS Rules Committee may have wanted its Penalty 7 to be the same as the NCAA's Penalty g, but Penalty 7's wording stops short of saying the same thing that Penalty g's wording says. JR has referenced NFHS R4-S36-A2b, and that is one of the two rules that are referenced in Bob's NFHS Casebook Play 4.19.8 Situation D. The other rule referenced in the Casebook Play is R7S5-A3b; both of the rules referenced in the Casebook Play are the applicable rules for that play. I would concede JR, et al's point if A1's free throw activity had started: that being anytime after the players had lined up for the free throws. But in the OP that activity had not been reached, and NFHS R10, Penalty 7 is not the same as NCAA R10-S1, Penalty g.

Maybe this is a play that needs to be addressed by the NFHS Rules Committee. I think that we call all agree the Point of Interruption rule in both the NFHS and NCAA does cause more problems than it solves. Five years ago we would not be having this discussion because it would have been so easy to administer in both NFHS and NCAA.

MTD, Sr.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I agree, that the double technical foul by A1 and B1, by definition, is a Point of Interruption. But it is the last foul in a false double foul and because it occured when neither team was in control of the ball when it occured, R4-S36-A2c tells us that the AP Arrow is the method used to put the ball back into play. R4-S36-A2b is not the applicable rule because the double technical foul occured while B1's personal foul was being reported.

MTD, Sr.

But it did occur with another infraction involved. The AP is only used when neither team has control AND your don't have some other action that dictates who should get the ball (a made goal; a different, prior foul; a violation). It is not unlike having a double foul on a throwin...the throwing team gets the ball back even though they don't have team control.

[Scrapper1]

Something that I have found is usually (but not always, I admit) helpful in figuring out the POI is to ask "What would we do now if the double foul had never happened?"

In the situation in the original post, the answer is to line up and shoot the free throws. That's the correct POI.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Something that I have found is usually (but not always, I admit) helpful in figuring out the POI is to ask "What would we do now if the double foul had never happened?"

In the situation in the original post, the answer is to line up and shoot the free throws. That's the correct POI.

Scraper1:

That is a good point, and it is a question I always ask in an NCAA game, but it is my humble opinion that the NFHS rules are slightly ambiguous with regard to the play we are discussing because NFHS R10, Penalty 7 is so direct in is implicatioin that false double fouls are penalized in the order that they occur.

MTD, Sr.