Fight situation
 

Tonight, observing VG game. I was engaged in conversation, and as a result missed a crucial piece of the puzzle. Let's see who can be first to figure it out.
Ball is in play, red has team control. White 30 fouls red 33. Red 33 retaliates with an elbow after the whistle. White 30 gives her a big shove and follows up, wanting more. She is grabbed by teammates and an official intervenes. Things heat up more. People stream onto the court from every direction. Coaches of both teams. Cops. Adults, presumably parents, out of the stands. I'm told afterward several players left white's bench, not sure about red's bench, but no one else did any fighting, although white 30, I'm sure, would have accommodated. There was a considerable discussion, then red 11 stepped to the free throw line with the lane empty. She clanked the first, then returned to the huddle in front of the bench. There was another short pause, teams huddled at their respective benches, and the officials conferred further. Then, ball was put in play at the division line by white. I went totally blank trying to figure out what they had called. The answer, after I heard it, was obvious.

Who's first?

Double Ts on 30 and 33. (No shots)
Non-fighting Ts on all red and white players.

Frankly, I'm stumped as to why Red would get one free throw and white would take the ball out at the division line. Makes no sense to me.

Red 33 was fouled in the act of shooting and the basket was good? That would explain the one free throw. So would a common foul if Red was in the bonus and 33 bricked the first free throw. But I can't imagine why they'd shoot the free throw with the lane cleared or why they'd put the ball back in play at the division line. A double T would go POI which would be the free throw(s) and play on from there.

Maybe, but red 11 shot.

Unless there was a false multiple in which Red 11 was fouled in the act of shooting a successful basket.

Oh yeah, I missed that Red 11 shot the free throw. Your scenario explains her single free throw. But still stumped about the throw-in.

Red 11 had already shot the 1st FT and was at the line for the 2nd, with the ball in her hands (or dribbling) when the melee began.

Red 33 was the shooter and made the shot...but was DQ'd as a result of her actions (flagrant or 5th foul) or was injured. Red 11 was her sub.

The lane was cleared and white got the ball at the division line becasue the fouls happened at the end a quarter (hence the huddle at the bench after the FT) ....and white had the AP arrow.

My best guess
 

Red 33 and White 30 were both charged with flagrant technical fouls. This was a double technical foul and no FTs were awarded. Both players were disqualified.

Since Red 33 had been fouled by White 30 during the live ball which immeditately preceeded the melee, AND IT SEEMS THAT RED WAS IN THE BONUS (that's the bit of missing info), Red 33's substitute will come in and attempt the 1-and-1. [JAR wrote that Red had team control so there is no try involved. The foul is a common foul.] That substitute was Red 11. She missed the front end of the 1-and-1.

Now the officials should have had players lined-up along the lane for this FT as play should have resumed from the POI following the double T, but instead they kicked the administration of this part and awarded White the ball at the division line by using the AP arrow.

That's my conjecture.

I like this thought! :)

If all of this activity happened very near the expiration of time in a quarter, then it is possible that the officials administered it correctly since the POI would be the AP throw-in for the beginning of the new quarter.

Very clever, Camron. :D

I dont buy POI...

1) If it was the end of a quarter... then the initial foul had to happen before time expired in the quarter. Quarter is not over until Red finishes the 1 and 1 (assuming team is in bonus) Then you have the double technical for the fighting where both players are ejected. Since the T's and the mayhem occurred before the end of the quarter it is still all part of the quarter and no penalties can carry over to another quarter...

2) Coaches from both teams on the floor were beckoned on in a fight in my book. (whether signalled or not)

3) The original post said several white players ran on to the floor if no red players ran on to the floor, there is no offsetting technical foul (original post said not sure that red players ran out) So If there were more than the 5 white players out there, the offenders would have been disqualified...

If the bench cleared, white is playing with 4 players because white has no subs and one on the floor disqualified....

If red had players come on to the floor they too would have been disqualified and then there would have been the offsetting T's

4) because white players came on to the floor the White Head Coach now has an indirect. Same with Red if they had players come on to the floor...


5) if not ofsetting (players from both benches came off) Then red should have shot two more shots for the T on white for having bench personnel come on to the floor.

6) Once all shots taken this ends the quarter and new quarter starts...

Enough, already. Camron nailed it. The personal foul happened as time expired in the first quarter.

Was it on a shot, then?

If you got people streaming onto the court from all directions, I am surprised that the game did not get called???

Not so fast...team control still exists while a player is in the act of shooting but before the ball is released....so a try could be involved.