If anybody knows the correct ruling for this I would truly appreciate an answer:
SITUATION
Player A fouls Player B while shooting. Player A is then called for a technical directly after the personal. In what order are the foul shots taken?
I was recently in a game where the personals were shot, then the techs and then the ball was given to player B's team. This sounds quite unfair that a personal foul could turn into 7 points!

If we look at the rule as it stands today...of course it is "unfair". That is the point, the penalty is supposed to prevent someone from being dumb and getting a T. It is just a shame most of the players don't consider the severe point swing before they slam the ball, pop off their mouths, etc.
I'm also a big fan of the T being counted as a personal. I had a situation this year where the player got called for his fourth, ran his mouth at me, and the T was number 5. After we reminded the coach T's count as personals and he was gone, I thought he was going to code right there on the floor. Best part was, I don't think he was half as pissed at me as he was at the player ( we missed the triple whammy though, they were already in the bonus).

Clear the lane,shoot the foul shots first then the tech.Inbound team B at the half court........

All fouls are penalized in the order in which they occur. If the personal foul happens first then its free throws are shot first. Since the T came after the personal, the free throws for the T are shot next, then B gets the ball at half court.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dgloeck:
This sounds quite unfair that a personal foul could turn into 7 points!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


How is it unfair? The "personal foul" didn't turn into 7 points. "A" committed two fouls (a personal and a technical). It's no different than if A committed a personal foul and then later in the game committed the technical foul.

I wasn't there, and you didn't ask, so I won't comment on the foul calls -- but it sounds as if A has only him/herself to blame for the 7 points.

Notice that we are in the habit of assuming everyone is asking what a ruling would be under NF rules? Obviously, by his question, he was watching a game under these rules, but let's take a look at how this same situation would be handled under NBA rules and see if their procedure is more equitable.

In the NBA, when a technical occurs, the game is "frozen" and the technical is shot. Then the game is picked up at the place it was at the time the T was called.

Since a T is usually (yes, I admit not always) assessed for behavior that is outside the process of the normal play of the game, doesn't this seem more logical?

Note I'm not addressing one shot vs. two shots. Two shots is fine in high school to emphasize the penalty. But why should possession be a part of the penalty? If an offensive team commits a technical, they lose two shots and the ball. If a defensive team commits a technical, they lose only the two shots.

I confess - this was a sneaky way to revive my soapbox stance on eliminating the possession aspect from the penalty for a technical. Hee hee.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Watson:
If we look at the rule as it stands today...of course it is "unfair". That is the point, the penalty is supposed to prevent someone from being dumb and getting a T. It is just a shame most of the players don't consider the severe point swing before they slam the ball, pop off their mouths, etc.
I'm also a big fan of the T being counted as a personal. I had a situation this year where the player got called for his fourth, ran his mouth at me, and the T was number 5. After we reminded the coach T's count as personals and he was gone, I thought he was going to code right there on the floor. Best part was, I don't think he was half as pissed at me as he was at the player ( we missed the triple whammy though, they were already in the bonus). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I mean is that is should penalize a team the same amount regardless of whether a team is on offense or defense.

Also - and here I put on my "Mr. Nit-picky" hat - a technical does not count as a personal, but it does count toward the five fouls for disqualification (NF rules).

Why is this distinction important? Older score books sometimes don't have a place to cross off technicals in the same place personals are crossed off. Sometimes a scorer will ask you if a technical is a personal meaning should he mark a foul in the personal section (so it counts toward the 5). If that's all they do, they may lose track of the technical being called against that player for future reference.

If that's the case, I always tell them that the technical doesn't count as a personal, but it does count toward the five and that they have to somehow mark it that way in the book, while still indicating that the player has one T.

Newer scorebooks eliminate that problem for the most part, because they have the 5 personal boxes and the 2 technical boxes in the same place and it's fairly obvious that a total of 5 is a DQ while a total of 2 technicals is also.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Why is this distinction important? Older score books sometimes don't have a place to cross off technicals in the same place personals are crossed off. Sometimes a scorer will ask you if a technical is a personal meaning should he mark a foul in the personal section (so it counts toward the 5). If that's all they do, they may lose track of the technical being called against that player for future reference.

If that's the case, I always tell them that the technical doesn't count as a personal, but it does count toward the five and that they have to somehow mark it that way in the book, while still indicating that the player has one T.

Newer scorebooks eliminate that problem for the most part, because they have the 5 personal boxes and the 2 technical boxes in the same place and it's fairly obvious that a total of 5 is a DQ while a total of 2 technicals is also.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing I like to do (especially when dealing with books that have PF's all the way on the left and TF's all the way on the right) is fill in one of the 5 foul boxes with a "T" when a technical is called. That way you don't have to count and think whether or not the limit has been reached.

BTW (for Brian Watson), what is the triple whammy?

but if the foul shots are shot first, then the technical, what happens if the foul shooter misses the 2nd shot? The rebound goes to either team A or B. Do you stop the play to shoot the tech?

For the answer to beancenzo's question....the lane is cleared, so there can't eb any rebound. Of course that is under NF rules. This scenairo will be different under NCAA rules next year. They are going to the NBA way for "T's". They are even going to shoot 1 shot on some "T's".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dennis Flannery:
For the answer to beancenzo's question....the lane is cleared, so there can't eb any rebound. Of course that is under NF rules. This scenairo will be different under NCAA rules next year. They are going to the NBA way for "T's". They are even going to shoot 1 shot on some "T's".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I hope this means NF will adopt this the following year. That's the usual case when NCAA makes a rule change. Although, I really feel we should keep the two shots. I think sportsmanship is more important at this level than when you get higher up and the game becomes more "commercial" and yes - I do include college in that statement.

Hey Mark,

You know, when I first heard your idea about not losing possession on a T, I thought it was a bit odd. Ok, OK - I thought it was ridiculous. But, after thinking about it for some time and pondering your argument, there does seem to be a basis for it in terms of fairness within the game. It does make sense to shoot the T's and continue where the game left off - none of this double whammy for the team with the ball committing a T.

I do believe that all T's should be assessed with two free throws - most T's are thrown for inappropriate behaviour and two free throws seems like just punishment.

Cheers,
David

I thought that the new NCAA rule kept two shots for unsportsmanlike T's, but went to a single free throw only for "technical" T's -- excess TO, book errors, etc. Am I wrong on that?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Note I'm not addressing one shot vs. two shots. Two shots is fine in high school to emphasize the penalty. But why should possession be a part of the penalty? If an offensive team commits a technical, they lose two shots and the ball. If a defensive team commits a technical, they lose only the two shots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, Mark, I don't have a problem with the possession aspect of technical fouls. I don't know the statistics (though I bet you might), but I'd at least guess that most actions that get T'd occur when that player's or coach's team isn't going to have the ball anyway--like after a reaction to a foul call, or a no-call on a shot (whether made or missed). Obviously there are situations when players react (or coaches scream for a foul) while on offense, but if my guess is generally true, then in most cases the "T-ed" team isn't going to be affected by the opponents getting the ball anyway.

But even if I'm wrong in my hypothesis, I think at least at the high school level, and possibly still at the college level, the emphasis needs to be on ensuring that a penalty does what it's supposed to do--PENALIZE! If the penalty (for unsportsmanlike behavior) becomes too minute, then it's not going to do it's "job" of encouraging proper behavior on the court. The prospect of losing the ball should, theoretically at least, provide some additional incentive for a player or coach keeping his/her mouth shut. They know the rule, so if they want to jeopardize possession while on offense, so be it.

Another thought: If the idea is to TRULY penalize the unsporting behavior, why not simply AWARD one or two points for a technical rather than offer only the POSSIBILITY of the other team getting a couple points? After all, if the opponents miss the free throws and the penalized team gets the ball back, there has, in effect, been NO penalty (other than getting closer to bonus and a disqualification). I know the awarding of points will never happen (except in summer leagues, maybe), but if you think about the purpose of assessing a technical, you might agree it would make sense to do so. I know you love these philosophical discussions, Mark, so here's your chance to keep one going a bit longer.

[This message has been edited by Todd VandenAkker (edited June 20, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker:

Another thought: If the idea is to TRULY penalize the unsporting behavior, why not simply AWARD one or two points for a technical rather than offer only the POSSIBILITY of the other team getting a couple points? After all, if the opponents miss the free throws and the penalized team gets the ball back, there has, in effect, been NO penalty (other than getting closer to bonus and a disqualification). I know the awarding of points will never happen (except in summer leagues, maybe), but if you think about the purpose of assessing a technical, you might agree it would make sense to do so.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Todd-

What are you, some kind of Shaq fan?! I suppose we should just award him his points at the FT line, too, to discourage the hack-a-shaq!

You're right, this will never happen. The on ly sport where officials can give (take, really) a point is BOXING, and we don't want to go there!

On a serious note, I would hate to see the NBA go to the proposed choice of FTs or possession that has been bantered around for years. That's too much tinkering for my taste.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker:
If the penalty (for unsportsmanlike behavior) becomes too minute, then it's not going to do it's "job" of encouraging proper behavior on the court. The prospect of losing the ball should, theoretically at least, provide some additional incentive for a player or coach keeping his/her mouth shut. They know the rule, so if they want to jeopardize possession while on offense, so be it. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I would support that theory if they could also penalize the defense by taking the ball away from them. Oh wait - they already don't have the ball http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

I really don't care what the penalty is as long as it's substantive - AND is an equal penalty for either team AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME! Wouldn't you prefer to be able to call a technical when the bad behavior happens, instead of waiting for a change of possession, like we are told to do sometimes?

Where is it written that there is more of an expectation of sportsmanship from a team when they have the ball than when they don't? Answer - nowhere. Yet the penalty is harsher for a team when they have the ball for behavior that may be identical that of the other team when the other team doesn't have it. That's an inequity in the rules that needs to be corrected.

My two cents worth. I can see both sides of this discussion but I lean more toward leaving the penalty as is for the following reason:

Teams on offense lose possession for ALL OTHER fouls or violations commited while on offense. I think a "T" is no different as far as a foul is concerned other than the typically unsportsmanlike nature of the call.

In my mind, (1) it is the unsportsmanlike nature of a technical that results in the two free-throws and (2) it is the foul (even though technical) that results in loss of possession. I believe that double penalty is there for a reason.

Sidenote: I can think of one situation where a technical foul will not automatically result in the violating team losing possession. A dunk during pregame warm-ups. I believe the rule is shoot the FT's and then line up for a jumpball.

Just a thought: Imagine if the NBA went to the Federation rule on Intentional. We would have seen a LOT less Hack-a-Shaq because the Lakers would shoot then get the ball back.

Again, just my two cents.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikesears:
Sidenote: I can think of one situation where a technical foul will not automatically result in the violating team losing possession. A dunk during pregame warm-ups. I believe the rule is shoot the FT's and then line up for a jumpball.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not true - at least in Fed. See case 6.3.1F.

Todd-

You stat that the on ly sport where officials can give (take, really) a point is BOXING, and we don't want to go there!

How about holding in the end zone = safety = points. Or a balk with a runner at third = 1 point. Or, perhaps, goaltending? (I think that soccer refs can now award a goal for a handball if it was obviously going into the net without the handball, but I could be wrong.) Indeed, as I recall in much earlier days of basketball, instead of shooting bonus free throws, after an alotment of fouls was exceeded, a foul resulted in one point for the fouled team,and the other team got the ball back -- creating an obvious strategy for the losing team at the end of a game.

That being said, I agree that (outside of rec leagues) awarding points is a terrible idea.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mikesears:
[B]
>Teams on offense lose possession for ALL OTHER fouls or violations commited while on offense. I think a "T" is no different as far as a foul is concerned other than the typically unsportsmanlike nature of the call.<

Maybe this is wrong too!

>In my mind, (1) it is the unsportsmanlike nature of a technical that results in the two free-throws and (2) it is the foul (even though technical) that results in loss of possession. I believe that double penalty is there for a reason.>

Shouldn't that reason, whatever it is, apply evenly to teams that do and do not have the ball?

I know I'm belaboring the point, but I would like the NF to form a study group on this issue.

Maybe now that they have their own discussion boards, we can get somewhere.

I think there will be much discussion about this because the Nat. Fed. rules typically change after college rules change. I am willing to enforce the rule however it is written because I am only marginally on the side of the way the rule is written.

I believe our discussion is NOT about the free throws as we both agree that free-throws are an acceptable penalty for a "t". Our discussion seems to focus more around the issue of possession after the free-throws. You contend that it should go back to the team who had it before the "T" was called because you feel that a technical foul should ONLY result in free-throws. This is an inequality in the penalty enforcement. I contend that offense should lose possession because a foul (regardless of what type --in this case, a "T") is still a foul and the penalty for any foul commited while on offense is loss of possession. Anything other than loss of possession would be an inequality in the rules about fouls. It would seem to me that a technical foul then becomes less severe than a regular foul commited by an offensive player. (Note: I am not making a statement of fact but rather a comparison to how we are thinking)

I really don't care how the rule is written or changed as I can see both sides of this issue in where the inequality exists.

According to your profile you have been doing this for 21 years compared to my 2 years and you may have seen a number of instances where a "t" caused huge inequities in a game!

By the way, you are right on about the pre-game dunk. Putting the ball at the disposal of the inbounder is what starts the alternating possession arrow. I thought I had read a casebook example where the jumpball still took place. If I find it, I will pass it on. Thanks!

[This message has been edited by mikesears (edited June 22, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hawk:
Todd-

You stat that the on ly sport where officials can give (take, really) a point is BOXING, and we don't want to go there!

How about holding in the end zone = safety = points. Or a balk with a runner at third = 1 point. Or, perhaps, goaltending? (I think that soccer refs can now award a goal for a handball if it was obviously going into the net without the handball, but I could be wrong.) Indeed, as I recall in much earlier days of basketball, instead of shooting bonus free throws, after an alotment of fouls was exceeded, a foul resulted in one point for the fouled team,and the other team got the ball back -- creating an obvious strategy for the losing team at the end of a game.

That being said, I agree that (outside of rec leagues) awarding points is a terrible idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry Hawk, soccer refs cannot award goals under any circumstance, however they can take them away if the ball has not been put back into play

Hockey is the sport that has a provision for awarding a goal, with goalie pulled, a thrown stick to stop a goal results in an awarded goal.

I think the rule is just, but for the sake of arguement. I thought that was the reason that the player control fouls no longer involved free throws is because they've already lost possession. I'm sorry but, I can't see the NF and NCAA going with two free throws with the team that had possession, "just resuming play". That's mad...The NCAA and NF keeps this game respectfull, the NBA can learn a thing or two. There's waaaay too much rule latitude. I think it's time for the NBA to start following suit.