[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Boys JV tonight. I have an off-ball foul against white at the same time my partner whistles a on-ball foul against white. Looking through the list in 4-19 of some of the more exotic fouls, the closest fit is the very exotic-sounding false multiple foul.

ART. 11 . . . A multiple foul is a situation in which two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approximately the same time.

ART. 12 . . . A false multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more fouls by the same team and the last foul is committed before the clock is started following the first, and at least one of the attributes of a multiple foul is absent.

We had two fouls by the same team, the second committed before the clock started following the first, and one of the attributes of a multiple foul (namely both fouling the same player) was absent. That seems like it fits the definition.

At least one could argue that it fits the definition.

What we actually did is got together, made an determination as to which foul happened first, and went with that one. I believe that was the correct thing to do since one of the fouls had to have happened first, which created dead ball (there was no shot, nor act of shooting). And once the ball is dead, the second foul is ignored since it was neither intentional nor flagrant.

Agree or disagree?

I'd say your sitch fit the definition of a false multiple foul, not an exotic foul. To have an exotic foul, I think there has to be either a pineapple or a little umbrella or a palm tree involved. That being said, what you did was the politic and pragmatic thing to do.