Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
MTD,
That was an excellent and informative post. I also believe that the situation qualifies as a false double foul according to the definition of such. 4-19-8 I think it was strange that the penalty was changed two seasons ago. I don't even recall the change being announced. All I remember the committe stating is that a new definition for simultaneous fouls was added. I must say, though, that since this new definition was added this play must now be called a simultaneous foul and not a false double foul.
|
Nevada, MTD Sr is referencing language that has not been relevant or pertinent to simultaneous personal fouls since the case book play he referenced got dropped. Whenever that was. The problem was that when they deleted the case book play, there then was NO penalty defined in the rulebook for simultaneous personal fouls, only simultaneous technical fouls. We had a lengthy thread way back then arguing what the penalty for a simultaneous personal foul should be, as it was NOT covered in the rule book. A bunch of us argued that the penalty for a simultaneous personal foul should be exactly the same as the book penalty for a simultaneous technical foul. MTD Sr. took the opposite tack, and tried to tell us that you had to penalize it differently- i.e. as a false double foul. I think somebody must have been reading our arguments, because the next year(2002-03), the FED added language to define what the penalty should be. Lo and behold, the FED said that you penalize a simultaneous personal foul EXACTLY the same way as you penalize a simultaneous technical foul, NOT the same way as a false double foul. That ticked MTD Sr. off completely, and he's still trying to justify his wrong guess. Why, I don't know- because nobody cares anymore except him. We were all guessing way back when that thread occured, because there was no penalty listed. Our guess turned out to be what the FED thought the appropriate ruling should actually be. Apparently, that still seems to be bugging Mark. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. Nobody calls simultaneous personal fouls anyway(except maybe Mark)! 
From the "Comments on the 2002-03 Revisions" from the 2002-03 Case Book- "Definition Of A Simultaneous Personal Foul Added(4-19-9): The definition of a simultaneous personal foul was added to the existing definition of a simultaneous technical foul. Simultaneous personal fouls were referenced in Rule 6-3-3g and in the NFHS Handbook, but were not defined in Rule 4. This addition proves consistency in rule terminology and penalty administration".
|
Jurassic Referee:
I NEVER made wrong guess about how to handle simultaneous personal fouls. My interpretation was based on the definitions of a double foul and a false double foul, and casebook plays that already exsisted. My intepretation was correct at the time of the discussion. The casebook play from the middle 1980's was identical to that the thread was discussing.
I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants to further define simultaneous personal and techncial fouls. The addition of these definitions in 2002-03 did not change the fact that they still are false double fouls. The major change was in the the penalties that will be assessed for simultaneous personal and techncial fouls: free throws, that would have been attempted in the past, would not be attempted anymore.
A few years earlier, the Rules Committe defined double techncial fouls. Double technical fouls are by defintion a false double foul. But when the Rules Committee added the definition of double techncial fouls, it changed the penatly in the same way that it changed the penalty for simultaneous personal and technical fouls.
If one goes back and reads the literature of the time concerning the addition of the definition of double techncial fouls and the changing of the penalty, so that no free throws were to be attempted, was because too many officials were not administering the penalty for a particular false double foul correctly. The following play was given most often as an example:
Play: While the ball is live, A1 and B1 gets in each other's face and push each other in an unsportmanlike manner. RULING: The fouls by A1 and B1 are personal fouls, and therefore this is a double foul. No free throws are attempted and the AP Arrow is used to resume play.
There were too many instances where the officials were charging A1 and B1 with techncial fouls and allowing free throws to be attempted before going to the AP Arrow to resume play. I know because I had far too many officials tell me that this is how they had administered this type of play. Officials were forgetting that all contact fouls while the ball is live are personal fouls. Therefore the Rules Committee added the definition of double techncial fouls and stated that like a double foul (double personal foul) no free throws would be attempted.
While I was upset that far too many officials were deficient in their knowledge of the rules, I agree that deleting the free throw requirement from the double techncial foul scenario of a false double foul is a good thing from the point of game management just as it is a good thing from the point of game management for simultaneous personal and techncial fouls.
Two things still get my britches in a knot:
1) Far too many officials still do not understand the defintitions of double foul and false double foul; and
2) More importantly, as I have stated before, I do not believe the Rules Committee does a good job of researching its archives for appropriate casebook plays before issuing a ruling.
But to get back to the primary reason for this particular post and that is: I NEVER guessed about the interpretation of handling the original play because I knew that the Rules Committee had already issued a casebook play, I was just lazy in not looking it up. And with that in mind I think you owe my a public apology for making such a statement.
MTD, Sr.