Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
If it weren't meant to be this way then there would be no need for a simultaneous fould definition, because the situation would fit nicely into the definition of a double foul or a false double foul. IMHO
|
I disagree. The definition of a simultaneous folu is needed because the fouls are not against one another. I agree with BZ that the two fouls must be the same, just as they have to be the same for a double foul. As I stated, I believe simulataneous fouls are identical in definition to double fouls, except that the fouls are not committed against each other. That's clearly spelled out in the rule.