Ruling

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This situation pops up every now and then. The NFHS has provided a definitive answer. It is in our past interps archive.

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...8&postcount=33

It's more fun to read the banter here ! I'll admit I haven't dipped into the archives much.

When the season winds down, I'll snuggle up to the hearth, with a down comforter and a glass of Merlot and review seasons' past.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

OK, we have determined that in this case, the 2 FTs by the player-with-5-fouls-but-not-yet-DQ'd stand.

How about these three situations:
Player A5 has committed his 5th foul as in the OP. He is shooting two FTs as in the OP.
Situation 1: A5 has the ball at his disposal for the first free throw when the trail official is notified of the DQ.
Situation 2: A5 has released the ball for his first FT, but it is clearly not yet to the basket when the trail official is notified of the DQ.
Situation 3: A5 has released the ball on his first FT, as the ball is in the air B1 violates by going below the FT line extended and the ball does not go in. The trail official is notified of the DQ as the ball was in the air.

How are the three situations handled? In Sitch 1 and Sitch 2, does the FT have to complete once the ball is at the disposition of the shooter or in the air or are you going to cancel the FT and have A6 take the FTs? In Sitch 3, does A5 get to take the replacement FT?

1) blow the whistle (making the ball dead); DQ the player; sub shoots.

2) The first FT stands; the sub shoots the second

3) The sub shoots the "replacement" FT.

[Scrapper1]

While we have discussed the correct procedure and the relevant case play was cited, there is at least one state (Illinois) in which this ruling is not followed, IIRC. (Or at least, it wasn't being followed at the time we discussed it previously.)

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

While we have discussed the correct procedure and the relevant case play was cited, there is at least one state (Illinois) in which this ruling is not followed, IIRC. (Or at least, it wasn't being followed at the time we discussed it previously.)

This play actually happened in Illinois recently and the 2 free throws decided the game. Officials made the right call and allowed FTs to count.

Are you sure about the ruling not allowed in IL.?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by fullor30

This play actually happened in Illinois recently and the 2 free throws decided the game. Officials made the right call and allowed FTs to count.

Are you sure about the ruling not allowed in IL.?

This was posted by JRutledge (who I think is in Illinois) after a long discussion of this very situation. He contacted his state interpreter, who said it was a correctable error:

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...0&postcount=55

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This was posted by JRutledge (who I think is in Illinois) after a long discussion of this very situation. He contacted his state interpreter, who said it was a correctable error:

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...0&postcount=55

While I understand that there are a finite number of cases that can be in the book each year, I don't understand why the case book does not continue to expand with interpretations and cases each year simply added until they are outdated by a rule change. With the current process, JRut is absolutely correct that we cannot possibly expect officials to know what WAS in the Case Book in 2001-02 or in a Rules Interp. in 1998-99 -- UNLESS they are in a Case Book that we see each year. Just my humble opinion.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This was posted by JRutledge (who I think is in Illinois) after a long discussion of this very situation. He contacted his state interpreter, who said it was a correctable error:

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...0&postcount=55

I was discussing this play tonight with someone and it didn't happen recently.......but it did happen.

Not sure if interpreter mentioned is the go to guy...........Jeff, I'd go to Harry on this one. And Harry said it's not correctable.