this ALMOST happened...

[APG]

Under all major codes in the USA, you would issue a double technical foul. You would NOT shoot free throw for the technical fouls. Double fouls go to the point of interruption, which in this cause would the free throws on the shooting foul.

I think this is the pertinent rules for FIBA

Art. 42 Special situations

42.1 Definition
In the same stopped-clock period which follows an infraction, special situations may arise when additional foul(s) are committed.

42.2 Procedure

42.2.1 All fouls shall be charged and all penalties identified.
42.2.2 The order in which all fouls occurred shall be determined.
42.2.3 All equal penalties against the teams and all double foul penalties shall be cancelled in the order in which they were called. Once the penalties have been cancelled they are considered as never having occurred.
42.2.4 The right to possession of the ball as part of the last penalty still to be administered shall cancel any prior rights to possession of the ball.

[ABC Coach]

Okay...don't laugh...I'm not familiar with the "point of interruption" (POI) that has been mentioned. Can someone break that down for me?

In my hypothetical situation proposed in the OP, I'm assuming that the correct conclusion would be:

A1 and B2 get charged with T's and then we continue the game with A1 shooting his free throw. Is that right?

The "special situations" article in the FIBA rules always leaves me scratching my head. For me personally, I find it difficult to apply that article without a specific situation to apply it to. I think this thread might help me get all that straightened out. Thanks for the replies thus far.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ABC Coach

Okay...don't laugh...I'm not familiar with the "point of interruption" (POI) that has been mentioned. Can someone break that down for me?

In my hypothetical situation proposed in the OP, I'm assuming that the correct conclusion would be:

A1 and B2 get charged with T's and then we continue the game with A1 shooting his free throw. Is that right?

The "special situations" article in the FIBA rules always leaves me scratching my head. For me personally, I find it difficult to apply that article without a specific situation to apply it to. I think this thread might help me get all that straightened out. Thanks for the replies thus far.

That's the correct conclusion for FED and NCAA.

It *seems* to also be correct for FIBA, based on the wording you provided.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by ABC Coach

Okay...don't laugh...I'm not familiar with the "point of interruption" (POI) that has been mentioned. Can someone break that down for me?

"Point of interruption" is another way of saying "pick up where we left off." It's a method to resume play after a double foul, inadvertant whistle, or interrupted game (something you already know about). In the simplest terms, the team that was in control of the ball at the time of the whistle, keeps control.

Here's one example from five years ago to describe it, ABC:

After A1 scored a basket, and B2 inbounded the ball to B3, A4 and B4 shoved each other up the court. I called a double foul.

Back then, a double foul resulted in no free throws, and the possession arrow determined who got the ball. On this day, Team A, who just scored, got the ball back, because the arrow said so.

Today, a double foul results in no free throws, and point of interruption. Had this rule been in place back then, Team B would have kept the ball, because they already had it at the whistle. (I think this is one of the best recent rule changes.)

One time that you would still go to the arrow at the point of interruption is when there is no team control during a live ball, such as during a rebound.

I hope this helps.

[ABC Coach]

Thanks for the POI explanation. Let me see if I got this straight. Fouls that have equal penalities should cancel one another, right? So, using my OP as an example...

A1 was fouled while making a shot. He's entitled to a free throw. Then A1 and B2 get heated and two T's are called. Since technical fouls carry with them a different penalty than the PF, the PF stands and the technicals cancel each other. Is my reasoning right thus far?

Now let's just say for argument's sake that A1 made the shot and got fouled, but I called B1's foul as unsportsmanlike. This foul carries with it the same penalty as a technical. Therefore, by calling a double technical for the extra activity that followed would have resulted in B1's unsportsmanlike being cancelled by A1's technical...leaving only the B2 technical to be enforced. The end result would have been that we ignore the extra free throw for A1 when he made the shot and got fouled, and a player from team A would be shooting the technical free throws and retaining possession. Am I understanding all this clearly now?

Sorry...good grief...as I reread what I've written, I know it's a jumbled mess. After I get this sorted out in my head, I'll try my best to avoid such rambling!

[bainsey]

I'm going to defer to someone who knows the FIBA rules, because I can only answer your question based on NFHS here in the U.S., and the approach is quite different. Our approach has more to do with the order that fouls and double fouls happen, as opposed to the weight they carry.

The way I see it, in one case, you have a common foul, followed by a double technical foul. In another case, you have an intentional foul (that's the best NFHS equivalent I see), followed by a double technical. Either way, the double T goes to "point of interruption." Both players would get technical fouls, which would count as team fouls, and we'd pick up where we left off...
*for the common foul during a made shot: one free throw.
*for the intentional foul: two free throws (lane spaces empty), and throw-in at the nearest spot of the foul.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by ABC Coach

Now let's just say for argument's sake that A1 made the shot and got fouled, but I called B1's foul as unsportsmanlike. This foul carries with it the same penalty as a technical. Therefore, by calling a double technical for the extra activity that followed would have resulted in B1's unsportsmanlike being cancelled by A1's technical...leaving only the B2 technical to be enforced. The end result would have been that we ignore the extra free throw for A1 when he made the shot and got fouled, and a player from team A would be shooting the technical free throws and retaining possession. Am I understanding all this clearly now?

Almost. Keep in mind that in FIBA rules, an unsportsmanlike foul on a successful field goal is one free throw plus possession at half court. So it would not cancel the first technical.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Today, a double foul results in no free throws, and point of interruption. Had this rule been in place back then, Team B would have kept the ball, because they already had it at the whistle. (I think this is one of the best recent rule changes.)

One time that you would still go to the arrow at the point of interruption is when there is no team control during a live ball, such as during a rebound.

Forgive me, but I'm going to clarify a bit more.

This part is irrelevant, in that it's not necessary.

As soon as the basket went in, B was entitled to the ball. Had you called a DF prior to the ball being inbounded, B would still get the ball. Team control is only one factor to consider before going to the arrow.

This part is not necessarily true either. There are times, during a live ball, where a lack of team control at the time of the whiste would not send you to the arrow.

Throw-ins are prime examples.