[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Yes, there is a NFHS Casebook Play that addresses this play directly. LeThe Casebook Play states that if A1 would have charged into B2 whether or not B1 had made with A1, then you have a false double foul: foul by B1 against A2 (personal foul against a player in the act of shooting) and then a charging foul (player control in this play, unless NCAA Men's Rules).

Under NFHS and NCAA Women's Rules, do not score the goal if the ball went thru the basket, A1 shoots two free throws for the foul by B1 with no one lined up on the free throw lane and Team B gets a throw-in nearest the spot of A1's foul.

Under NCAA Men's Rules, score the basket if the ball went thru the basket and A1 shoots the appropriate number of free throws with no one lined up on the , then Team B gets a throw-in nearest the spot of A1's foul if Team B is not in the bonus or B1 shoots free throws if Team B is in the bonus and these free throws are shot as if A1's foul was the only foul involved (in otherwords, players are lined up along the free throw lane).

Having said all of that above. The postings in this thread have taken one of two directions: 1) follow the NFHS Casebook Play, or 2) rule that the foul by B1 caused A1 to charge into B2.

Those posters who follow (2), use the theory that the official will have difficulty selling the play. That may or may not be so. It is this writer's opinion the whether an official goes with (1) or (2) depends on the how the entire play takes place. And right now my butt hurts from sitting on the fence on this play.

Going with (2) is easy to do (and I gone with it myself) when play in the paint is very congested. If fact, when this situation does occurs it is a very good chance that B1's foul really did cause A1 to make contact with B2.

But if the lane is wide open and B1 comes from the side of A1 and his foul on A1's arm does not alter A1's drive to the basket, by all means go with (1). The theory behind this school of thought is that when A1 begins his drive to the basket he must be able to complete his play (jump, shoot, and return to the floor) without making illegal contact with an opponent who has a legal position before A1 became airborne.

When situation (1) occurs an official should not feel inhibited from going with the false double foul because of having to explain it to a coach, after all, that is why we are paid the big dollars, to make these kinds of decisions.