False multiple foul w/ T first

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Are you in agreement?

I don't like it, but I see the logic of it. To answer your question directly, no, I don't agree. But I also can't find any definitive citation to "disprove" the test answer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't like it, but I see the logic of it. To answer your question directly, no, I don't agree. But I also can't find any definitive citation to "disprove" the test answer.

I've always been told false multiples are enforced in order of occurance. The rule simply says they each carry their own penalty, but doesn't note the order. I think that's implied by the fact that there's a distinctive order of the fouls.

[just another ref]

It is not logical that a team is spared part of the penalty for a foul by committing another foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not logical that a team is spared part of the penalty for a foul by committing another foul.

Mr. Spock has never been, nor will he ever be, the NFHS basketball rules editor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not logical that a team is spared part of the penalty for a foul by committing another foul.

I don't disagree, but the frequency of this particular sasquatch is such that it's not really worth screwing with the rules to fix it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't disagree, but the frequency of this particular sasquatch is such that it's not really worth screwing with the rules to fix it.

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.

[Adam]

What would you do if the op was changed so the second foul was a PC on A1?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.

Is there a rule which says a part of one of the penalties can/shall be waived to preserve the order of the administration? Why not cancel the free throw for the personal and give the offended team the ball?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not logical that a team is spared part of the penalty for a foul by committing another foul.

B1 gets charged with a T. Either during the 2nd FT or during the ensuing throw-in while the thrower has the ball, B2 fouls A3 in the backcourt near the endline. The foul by B2 is the 8th of the half by Team B.

This is also a False Multiple foul. I have simply put more lag between the two fouls in order to make it clearer what the proper admin is.

Obviously, Team A loses the throw-in at the division line when the penalty for the foul by B2 is enforced.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

B1 gets charged with a T. During the ensuing throw-in while the thrower has the ball, B2 fouls A3 in the backcourt near the endline. The foul by B2 is the 8th of the half by Team B.

Obviously, Team A loses the throw-in at the division line when the penalty for the foul by B2 is enforced.

A didn't lose the throw-in. The ball was put in play. Nothing says the throw-in has to end any certain way.

As to your other scenario, I refuse to consider the possibility of a personal foul during a technical free throw.