![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Of the clearly acknowledged simultaneous violations I mentioned in a previous post... * Sim. FT violations proceed to the next FT or to the AP, per penalty * Sim. jump ball violations result in another jump ball, per penalty * Sim. BI or goaltending violations result in AP, per penalty * Sim. OOB violations result in AP, per penalty Sim. violations on the final FT for a technical foul is a little more complicated and not specifically covered. But it's hardly a unique case. Whenever we start mixing multiple infractions we often are required to deviate from the prescribed penalty, especially when resuming play. In this case we are going to wipe off the made free throw per penalty for sim. FT violation, but then give the shooting team the ball for a division line throw-in. Is that throw-in a return to the point where the game was interrupted, or it is simply the next step of the technical foul penalty? Looked at another way, if technical foul penalty administration is the current activity, a sim. FT violation does not interrupt that activity, it merely concludes one stage/step/phase of that activity. We then proceed to the next one.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 01:37pm. |
|
||||
You're right, however....
![]() Looking at penalty 3 in rule 9-1, it's clear that the ball is awarded via the arrow. However, POI makes more logical sense to me in this situation. If the simultaneous violation occurs when more free throws are to be shot, those free throws are shot and play continues as normal. This actually contradicts 9-1 penalty 3, since we are supposed to penalize everything in the order it happened. Since the violation happened after the foul, penalty 3 should be enforced. 9.1.3M(b) also goes against this principal, since the BI occurred after the foul. The case play says play continues from the free throw as normal, however, inferring this double violation actually goes to POI. I think the penalty in 3 should indicate POI rather than AP. That would reflect the way it's actually called on simultaneous FT violations (next shot or AP if no more shots are to follow). This would affect the hypothetical in the OP, as well as the situation where, on the 2nd of two technical foul or intentional foul free throws, there is a simultaneous violation. As the rule reads now, by the letter, you would go to AP in this case instead of granting a throwin to the team who was fouled.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
POI, as it currently exists, doesn't really suit dealing with violations, even though there are similarities. That could be changed. But there are fundamental differences between fouls and violations, so I'm not sure whether it would make sense, or that the result would be clearer than what we have now.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming |
|
||||
My only quibble is that it is not only double fouls away from the play that go POI. All double fouls are POI, and i don't see a fundamental reason their rule 9 equivalent shouldn't be the same.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
The same reasoning applies in principle to double violations.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
throw-in after double personal during free throw | closetotheedge | Basketball | 26 | Mon Dec 01, 2008 02:39am |
Double Violation on free throw | Largent | Basketball | 11 | Fri Jan 06, 2006 04:08pm |
Question about double violation on free throw | Damian | Basketball | 10 | Sat Sep 27, 2003 05:14pm |
Free Throw/Double Violation? | OK Ref | Basketball | 5 | Mon Jan 28, 2002 06:33am |
free throw shot question | rocky | Basketball | 13 | Tue Nov 28, 2000 05:53pm |