False multiple foul w/ T first

[Joel Poli]

2012 IAABO Refresher question 73

A-1 is in the act of shooting when B-2 is assessed a technical foul. A-1 continues the motion and is fouled
by B-1. The try is successful. The official awards A-1 one free throw followed by administering the technical
foul and awarding team A the ball at the division line opposite the scorer’s table. Is the official correct?
rules reference given 4-19-12, 8-6-2

Answer sheet is no. I believe that it is because we administer the fouls in the order that they occur. Shoot the T first then administer 1 shot for personal foul. How would we administer the personal foul shot? lane cleared so that we would have a division line throw-in? or have players occupy the lane spaces and play off the miss or make?

JP

[bob jenkins]

Door #1

[Scrapper1]

According to the person who wrote the exam and IAABO's lead interpreter, you line the players up and play off the make or miss. The penalties are administered in the order in which they occur. Since there was a foul after the technical foul, the possession portion of the penalty is lost.

[Joel Poli]

Thanks. Hope I never see this play!

JP

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

According to the person who wrote the exam and IAABO's lead interpreter, you line the players up and play off the make or miss. The penalties are administered in the order in which they occur. Since there was a foul after the technical foul, the possession portion of the penalty is lost.

Are you in agreement?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Are you in agreement?

I agree.

[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?