The bolded part is what you didn't explicitly say until now. And again, I'm not saying my scenario constitutes a double foul. I'm making the comparison because in a "blarge" you have two officials signalling different things on the same incident, so by rule because the signals have been made, this must be a double foul. The rules don't support walking back one of the foul calls. The issue is with the signal being made.
Um.....
(post # 1458)They are not the same incident...... B1 illegally contacted A1...... which then caused A1 to contact B2
I already provided the definition of a double foul. This is not a double foulAgain..... and slowly for you.........The second foul never happened....... therefore the whistle and signal are irrelevant.
The horn does not cause the ball to become dead.
What if he misses the free throw?
By rule, we play on as the horn does not cause the ball to become dead in this situation.
What are YOU doing in that situation though? It's crazy to me that any distracting measures taken by the opposing team in the lane spaces (including verbal) are or can be considered a violation, but sounding the horn mid shot is not an avenue to reshoot the free throw! Then again, common sense doesn't always apply to rules...
It's not my rule, however based on the rule alone this horn does not cause the ball to become dead.
We touched on fan behavior in an earlier thread this month but this situation is much different. Therefore, let's dive a little deeper into this rule because there are times where a technical foul is appropriate and times it is not...... The rule is stated below..... I have bolded two sentences in red that are very important to the situation you present.
Because this is a tie game, the officials were correct in doing this.
Incorrect. FT's for technical fouls are always followed by a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorer's table by the offended (shooting) team.
See above.....
Correct
The arrow does not change since the throw-in is a part of the technical foul penalty. It is not an alternating possession throw-in.
Not sure what their marching orders were with regards to assessing the technical, but they did err in starting the OT period with a jump ball.
I don’t understand this part. The way I read it, the team with the ball was the team whose fans stormed the court, thus drawing the technical. Further, why is the ruling different depending on the score if the court-storming happened after the buzzer? If I’m reading either the OP or your response incorrectly, I apologize.
Does this mean that if Team A is the one to shoot technical FTs and subsequently has the throw-in, that it again has the next possession arrow if there's a held ball?We touched on fan behavior in an earlier thread this month but this situation is much different. Therefore, let's dive a little deeper into this rule because there are times where a technical foul is appropriate and times it is not...... The rule is stated below..... I have bolded two sentences in red that are very important to the situation you present.
Rule 2-8-1 - Officials' Additional Duties
"The officials shall:
Penalize unsporting conduct by any player, coach, substitute,team attendant or follower.
NOTE: The home management or game committee is responsible forspectator behavior, insofar as it can reasonably be expected to control thespectators. The officials may rule fouls on either team if its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game. Discretion must be used in ruling such fouls, however, lest a team beunjustly penalized. When team supporters become unruly or interfere withthe orderly progress of the game, the officials shall stop the game until the host management resolves the situation and the game can proceed in anorderly manner. In the absence of a designated school representative, the home coach shall serve as the host management".
In your situation, fans erroneously (and understandibly) rushed the floor because they thought the game had ended when the ball went throught the basket when in fact, the period ended when the player picked up the ball. Therefore, no delay of the 4th period ended. Reasonable time should be given to clear allow the PA announcer to begin the process of clearing the floor to begin the overtime period.
Now, I will admit that some leagues/state associations may be instructing their officials to take a zero tolerance apporach to something like this and assess a technical foul. In contrast there are leagues/state associations that may say "we aren't penalizing that"..... In other words.... "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
Because this is a tie game, the officials were correct in doing this.
Incorrect. FT's for technical fouls are always followed by a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorer's table by the offended (shooting) team.
See above.....
Correct
The arrow does not change since the throw-in is a part of the technical foul penalty. It is not an alternating possession throw-in.
Not sure what their marching orders were with regards to assessing the technical, but they did err in starting the OT period with a jump ball.
Good situation..... and great questions
The throw-in after a technical foul is not an alternating possession throw in, it is part of the penalty associated with the technical foul.
So B gets the next possession on the arrow, similar to a throw-in to start the 3rd quarter?
Correct....... for overtime. (or at the start of the game)
The arrow is irrelevant if this occurs after the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd period. It will not change after the throw-in to start the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th period.
Under NFHS rules, if a team is reduced to one player, the game becomes a forfeit unless the referee believes that team has an opportunity to win the game. (Rule 3-1-1)
Lots to consider here. The official must judge....
So if a team has 5 players and one is injured or ill and cannot play, it is declared a forfeit in favor of the other team?
Under OHSAA regulations, this is a no contest.
I'll have to do some digging on this one.
Rule 4-44 Traveling
Not to get too far off topic, but this basically describes the same principle as to why a layup isn’t traveling, right?
Exactly !
This is not a backcourt violation, no different than if a long rebound from an unsuccessful try by A ends up in the back court without possession being established.
