Ruling
 

Just got this situation via e-mail and doing a cut and paste. Haven't checked books. I'm saying sub should have shot free throws. This actually happened recently. I also think below is correctable if fouled out player shot.


"Close to the end of the game, a player gets fouled and retaliates by shoving the player who fouled him and gets introduced to "Mr T" for his efforts.

The player who was fouled shoots his free throws and makes both of them, followed by the T shots. After the free throws are all shot, the scorer notifies the officials that the player who got the T (and made 2 free throws) had fouled out.

What do you do?"

Check your books.

The play stands -- the player is not DQ'd until you're notified.

Notify the coach that he has fouled out. Beckon the sub on the court and continue from the throw-in at the division line.

IMO, a correctable error and the two free throws (not the "T throws") are reshot, whether they were good or not, since it was caught prior to the ball ever becoming live.

What's done is done.
 

To parse your OP, A1 is fouled by B1 and A1 responds by contacting B1. Intentional player technical is called on A1.

A1 shoots his FTs, and then a Team B player shoots their FTs for the technical.

Officials are then notified that A1 has 5 fouls.

If that is the correct parsing:
Inform Team A coach that A1 is disqualified, once a substitute is in, Team B ball for a division line throw-in. A1's made free-throws are 'in the barn'.

It is not correctable. The right player shot the free throws since the scorer never notified the officials that he was disqualified. What Bob said above.

Always listen to Bob.

Another situation, if you were notified, but erroneously allowed player to shoot FT's , then realize the error of your ways, would it be correctable in the allowed timeline? I'm assuming 2-10-1c would apply.

Yes. You've administered unmerited FT's. I can't see anyone doing this, but... yes.

As refguy says, it is NOT correctable. However, he and Bob are not correct about WHEN the player is disqualified. The player is not DQ'd until the official notifies the COACH that the player has been DQ'd. 4-14-2.

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?

I guess I didn't finish the thought in an effort toward expediency. I guess I shouldn't assume that all officials would immediately notify the coach when notified by the scorer. Those that wouldn't should probably go see a short term memory specialist.

This may sounds stupid...but when A1 fouls out and we catch it before he shoots his shots for the personal foul....does team A still get 2 shots for the personal foul, or since hes disqualified would someone else shoot them or no shots because he became disqualified?

Sorry for the long run on sentence there:eek:

His sub shoots the free throws.

Consult the PAST INTERPS ARCHIVE!
 

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.

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.

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.?

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.

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.