Fight rule

[JugglingReferee]

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

I very much agree

-Josh

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

Agree with this as well however, unless there is an old case play/interp out considers both the uneven flagrants out there, I can't see how you would give Team B the ball except as either the result of AP or POI.

[Rob1968]

Case Book 10.4.5 A deals with a Fight situation in which the T's are equal in number, and therefore off-setting. The ball will be put into play at the POI.

10.4.5 B deals with a situation in which the T's on the players involved are off-setting, but a T is charged to A's coach, and B will shoot 2 and get the ball at the division line opposite the table.

10.4.5 C, E and F deal with off-setting numbers of T's, and POI for the resumption of play.

10.4.5 D indicates how to cancel the off-setting T's, with a remaining T causing 2 shots, and a division-line throw-in opposite the table, for the T that has no corresponding simultaneous T by an opponent.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

that is (or was) his opinion. I disagree, and would offset "across" categories. So, I'd have no FTs and POI in the OP.

[JugglingReferee]

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

[stosh]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by stosh

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

I totally agree that simultaneous can be used by logic. I also think a valid opinion is that logic can also say that these are not simultaneous. "Approximately the same time" could mean different thing to different people.

Rather, I would be interested to know your thoughts on the language used and the conclusion in my post #8.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

This is correct. This is not considered simultaneous. Free throws are warranted.