False Multiple Foul Substitution ???
 

Thanks Nevadaref for a good example (false multiple foul) that is not as cut and dry as I was thinking.

My opinion: Since these are multiple free throws resulting from a combination of personal and technical fouls, not multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls only, I'm allowing Team B's coach to substitute from the get-go.

As usual, I'm open to other interpretations from esteemed, or unesteemed, on nonesteemed, or steamed, members who may not agree with me.

I think NV's example is cut and dried, and I hadn't thought of it when responding. It isn't all that uncommon, and it would apply regardless of whether the same team was shooting all the FTs. It's plain enough to me that I'm going to recognize that I'd be making up my own rules by allowing a substitution here.

Cut And Dry ...
 

Agree that false multiples are not all that uncommon, however, no way that a false multiple foul, with one personal, and one technical, is as cut and dry as a single technical foul, which is what I first thought as I read the original situation:

One definition of cut and dry is: Not needing much thought, or discussion. If a false multiple foul (Nevadaref's post) occurs in my game, my partner, and I, are going to get together for a few seconds to make sure we handle the free throws, indeed, the whole situation, the right way (correct reporting of multiple fouls, correct order of free throws, correct free throw shooters, correct baskets, correct inbounds after the dust settles, and, in RefCT's, and Nevadaref's, case, legal substitutions).

I think that "making up my (your) own rules" is a little too strong here. I believe that there is some "wiggle room" in the substitution restrictions (3-3-1-C) during a series of free throws that are penalties for a combination of personal, and technical fouls, i.e. a false multiple foul (involving a technical foul), or even a false double foul (involving a technical foul). I don't even think that we have to resort to 2-3 here because of the "wiggle room" that I perceive to specifically covered in the rules.

But, of course, if one doesn't believe in my "wiggle room" theory, then we can simply agree to go with 2-3, a basketball official's version of Monopoly's "Get Out Of Jail, Free" card.

Or we can go with the Intent and Purpose of this substitution restriction rule, "to minimize time taken for substitutions ... does not preclude a substitution(s) during free throws" (Comments On The 1998-99 Basketball Rules Revisions). Since we're already taking few extra seconds to make sure we handle this false multiple foul situation correctly, we might as well beckon in the substitute(s).

In any case, I'm allowing the coach to get the kid out of the game as soon as possible after the kid is served his "cup of tea", using 3-3-1-C, or 2-3, or Intent and Purpose, whichever rule rocks your boat. What the heck? We can cite all three rules if we want. That should satisfy the rules nit-pickers that we all come across occasionally, either here, on the Forum, or outside in the real world of basketball officiating (or even that guy sitting here in front of my computer monitor, just who the heck does that guy think he is?).

Bottom line: I don't think that we need RefCT's rule change, but his post did generate some good discussion. Kudos to RefCT for his post (and it was only is eleventh post, not too shabby).

Agree.

I also think that if a player is brought in to just shoot FTs for the T, I am going to allow all other substitutes that are ready to come in as well, especially if that player that is coming out was given a T. And I still think that is rare situation that no one is going to really care about either way.

Rules changes are often made because there is a problem or a flaw in the rule or the game. I do not see this as the case here.

Peace

Technical Foul Substitution Restrictions ???
 

You think right, 100% correct, it's already covered in the existing rule, and has been covered in the rule for the past fifteen years, since the rule's inception: "During multiple free throws resulting from personal fouls ...". The substitution restrictions never have covered multiple free throws for technical fouls.

It has already been interpreted by either my state or the NF (I am not looking this up) that you can bring in all subs during a disqualification sub or technical situation when subs are already coming in the game. I have always done it that way and never had anyone hold up the rule and say it was incorrect. And the way I understand this, no one really cares because the purpose of the rule is to prevent unnecessary delays. You are not delaying anything if subs can already come into the game at that time and the opponent has their subs ready to go.

Peace

Exception ...
 

And you would be 100% correct: 3-3-1-C Exception: When a player is required by rule to be replaced prior to administering the free throw(s), then all other substitutes who have legally reported may also enter the game.

The only problem is that, in Nevadaref's post, there is no player who has been required to be replaced (injury, blood, untucked jersey, disqualification, jewelry, illegal equipment, etc.), so we need to look at another rule to allow an "early" substitution.

And you would be 100% correct again.

So is the debate that someone is not at the table waiting to be subbed for?

Peace

Coach Wants Kid To Sit And Calm Down ...
 

The debate is that, in Nevadaref's post, the first two free throws are for the personal foul portion of the false multiple foul, and, according to some (who may be correct), even in this false multiple foul situation, we have substitution restrictions until after that first free throw (for the personal foul) has been attempted. According to some, this would not allow us to get the T'd up (not disqualified) player substituted for until after the first free throw, when some, including RefCT, and the kid's coach, would like to get him out of the game sooner, to separate him from his opponents (probably all standing behind the division line), thus avoiding further problems.

Billy,

I guess I do not see this as a big deal. For one working 3 person, there is usually one of us that can watch that player. If the player is really a problem to the coach, he/she will be talking to them directly anyway. But officiating basketball is often a feel thing anyway, so I do see your point. I just do not see the big deal either way. If the coach cannot control his/her player, they will be subjected to other rules that could cost the team and the coach knows this. And not all Ts are about the opponent either. Some are directed at you as an official and I do not need a kid to be off the floor to handle my business. Kids say and do things on the bench too.

Peace

RefCT, No Rule Change For You (With Apologies To The Soup Nazi) ...
 

Another reason why we probably don't need RefCT's suggested rule change.

The shooter has an advantage in rebounding, in that when you wait for the hit, it is impossible to get across the lane in time to box him out (if the shooter makes an effort). When you go on the release, and the shooter has to wait for the hit, it is easy to box him out.

Solution Without A Problem ...
 

I can see your point, but like Camron Rust stated earlier, it only happens, maybe, three, or four, times a year, i.e., free throw shooter getting own rebound (I think Camron Rust's numbers are a little too high), so I doubt that the NFHS sees this as a problem.

Neither way is a problem as long as officials are willing to:

(1) Call lane violations and

(2) Call rebounding fouls.

Wouldn't change my life either way, to be honest.

If it is an advantage, they certainly are not taking advantage of it more. It is so rare that you go most of the season and not see this situation. Usually the guys closer are in a little early anyway and this does not even give the shooter a chance.

I just feel that we have a rule that is so inconsistently applied by official and we really need to just go back to what other levels do. It was never that rough in the first place. It is no different than any other rebounding situation.

Peace