This particular player in this case was entitled to no free throws at all. Yet the first two in this situation were so designated.

The free throws which were specifically awarded for the PF were unmerited. A different shooter for the shots on the T doesn't change this.

I think the former...he's done. The problem was awarding the wrong number of shots for a single foul. It isn't like there are several fouls that got all mixed up. It doesn't really matter what you call the shots because the player took the correct number and any in excess would be the mistake.

I disagree. There are two different fouls here and that makes the difference. At any given time, you are shooting the penalties for a specific foul. I'm canceling the 1st two as those FTs were not merited because they were for the PF.

This PS really gets to the heart of it. A1 was shooting the PF because A1 was required to shoot them. The T might have been shot any player but A1 was chosen....but it could have easily been A2. If it had been A2, it is obvious that the first FTs should be canceled. since those were the ones taken for the PF. Why would it be any different if A1 happened to selected for the FTs for the T?

My post above was made at 09:35pmEST, which was 35 minutes past my bedtime. That is my story (and excuse) and I am sticking with it. That said, I have since read the posts after it and thought about it and I think it was Camron that correctly broke this play down into two separate fouls and that unlike this thread's OP we cannot combine the two penalties in this particular play. That means we have to look at the penalties separately, and apply the Correctable Error Rule appropriately.

MTD, Sr.

It seems that the crew in the OP broke their play down into two separate penalties as well.


Therefore I believe that the same principle applies.

In the OP the game officials imposed two penalties for only one infraction for the rules. In the play discussed later in the thread there were two separate infractions for which each one has its one penalty. Can't use same logic.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I may have to deduct 1,000 points from you but I will let you keep the both fine Cuban cigars, :D.

I beg to differ. We all know it's improper, but what about this. What if the foul had been a punch? The officials call it a T for fighting, then award the and 1 to the offended player and 2 to another shooter.

They applied 2 penalties. The first was the one that was wrong.

There are many that say that a live ball punch is a flagrant personal and A1 would be shooting in any case.

We've covered that before and I did, and continue, to assert that there is a contradiction in the rules on the point as to whether it is a T or a personal for live ball fighting.

Yes to all that, but that wasn't the point here. They imposed two penalties for one infraction. I separate the two when correcting the error. MTD lumps them together.

Camron:

I have always questioned the contradiction, and have never received a satisfactory answer.

MTD, Sr.

I say they gave a two part penalty for one infraction. They got the penalty wrong for one infraction. Two fouls with two penalties is quite different.

Is it?

The OP specifies two separate free throw sets. Two penalties, one two part penalty, what's the difference? Either, of course is equally wrong.

Show me where an "and 1 foul" is defined in the book and I might agree with you. Of course you can't. There was only 1 foul despite how it was described or how it was called.

That's the whole point. There is no such thing. Yet they awarded a free throw for it. First. Followed by two more free throws.

That's why the first one doesn't count.