Do you call a 2nd foul?

BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
I suspect it happens more often than we think, I would bet dollars to donuts that it does.

We've got some knuckleheads that don't know a false double foul from a ham sandwich.

SNIPERBBB

We call false doubles all the time. Usually a personal foul, followed by a technical foul we just never have to use the term "false double" on the court.

BillyMac

SNIPERBBB wrote
We call false doubles all the time. Usually a personal foul, followed by a technical foul we just never have to use the term "false double" on the court.

Good point.

Probably some "false multiples" too.

JRutledge

Based on the play, no. If there clearly was a foul and for some reason players did not recognize the whistle unknowingly, then no, I am not calling a foul. Yes, there is a rule and a case play, but that is also a little different. I would only call a foul if something on purpose and nefarious took place. Otherwise, common sense rules the day here. But based only on the play and what I am thinking, call the first foul. This usually never happens anyway.

Peace

JRutledge

SNIPERBBB wrote
We call false doubles all the time. Usually a personal foul, followed by a technical foul we just never have to use the term "false double" on the court.

I put it this way. Many feel a false double foul is something that you call, but it is something that happens as a result of a second action. A false double foul is more about how you administer the fouls, not what you called. So you are right, we call these more often than we ever realize, but people get caught up in the name and think they are doing too much as a result.

Peace

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JRutledge wrote
I put it this way. Many feel a false double foul is something that you call, but it is something that happens as a result of a second action. A false double foul is more about how you administer the fouls, not what you called. So you are right, we call these more often than we ever realize, but people get caught up in the name and think they are doing too much as a result.

Peace

👍

MTD, Sr.

SNIPERBBB

JRutledge wrote
I put it this way. Many feel a false double foul is something that you call, but it is something that happens as a result of a second action. A false double foul is more about how you administer the fouls, not what you called. So you are right, we call these more often than we ever realize, but people get caught up in the name and think they are doing too much as a result.

Peace

I think I would be hard pressed to even come up with a memory of myself uttering the words "false" anything outside an association meeting or class. Only use it on the net in discussion forums/facebook

BillyMac

SNIPERBBB wrote
I think I would be hard pressed to even come up with a memory of myself uttering the words "false" anything outside an association meeting or class.

When such odd situations occur, and my partner and I have a short tête-à-tête discussion, and if they seem confused, I will occasionally drop the term "false double foul", usually followed by "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they occur".

When discussing with a coach I usually leave out the "false double foul" part.

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
... "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they occur".

Of course, as of last year, this is no longer always the case (faking being fouled).

Too bad, it was always so easy to follow.

https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/106298-faking-being-fouled-rule.html#post1052986

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
... they seem confused, I will occasionally ... by "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they occur".

Confused because that it not always the case in levels above high school.

JRutledge

SNIPERBBB wrote
I think I would be hard pressed to even come up with a memory of myself uttering the words "false" anything outside an association meeting or class. Only use it on the net in discussion forums/facebook

I agree that we do not always use the terms. I know I have to illustrate what we are doing to take the stigma out of the term. Many people think we are calling some exotic or unusual thing, but all of us have called a live ball and a dead ball foul. Or in some cases, multiple dead-ball fouls. Or at the very least, seen them called. That is really all those are. So I have said the term to let people know that is what we are doing under rules language, but not something I would make a big deal about.

Peace

Scrapper1

I actually saw this exact play happen at a try-out camp for the Northeast Conference. It was a game I was watching (not working), but it was the exact casebook play. I got really excited for a second, but the crew on the court only called the shooting foul. I would have loved to have seen them explain it to the coaches! 😃😃

BillyMac

BillyMac wrote
... "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they occur".

BillyMac wrote
... as of last year, this is no longer always the case (faking being fouled).

Can we change the wording to "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they are charged"?

Will that cover all NFHS situations?

bucky

This entire idea seems hypocritical. Nobody calls multiple fouls, which occur with far greater frequency, so why call a false double foul?

SNIPERBBB

bucky wrote
This entire idea seems hypocritical. Nobody calls multiple fouls, which occur with far greater frequency, so why call a false double foul?

In a false double scenario, it's almost always a Technical foul as the second foul

JRutledge

bucky wrote
This entire idea seems hypocritical. Nobody calls multiple fouls, which occur with far greater frequency, so why call a false double foul?

I have seen this happen but never considered the second foul or action. The first action IMO usually causes the second action.

But as said, the vast majority of FDFs are a technical foul, not this kind of situation in the original post at all.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
The first action ... usually causes the second action.

Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

If the first action caused the second action, you damn right!!!!

Like my mom used to say, "You can be right and dead at the same time." You go right ahead and do that, I will not likely do such a thing. Just like calling a multiple foul. It is in the rulebook, but not a good idea to call.

Peace

SNIPERBBB

BillyMac wrote
Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

Needs to more than a common personal foul for #2

BillyMac

SNIPERBBB wrote
Needs to more than a common personal foul for #2

So, if it was just a garden variety player control foul, we could ignore it?

A player control foul that we would not have ignored in any other situation?

Call it live ball continuous motion incidental contact, which by rule, is not illegal, and may be severe?

« Previous Page