NFHS Rules Changes Predictions/Rumors/Desires

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think NV's example is cut and dried ... It isn't all that uncommon...

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:

Originally Posted by RefCT

Substitutions are allowed before free throws for a Technical foul.

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).

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd be making up my own rules by allowing a substitution here.

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).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Agree.