Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
Page 54 of my most recent Referee Magazine.
A23 drives the lane and is fouled by B24 while attempting a layup. The ball enters the basket and A23 then collides with B55 who is in a legal guarding position (a) just before, or (b) just after returning to the floor.
Ruling: False double foul. Penalize both fouls in both cases.
I have never ever, ever, seen anyone call this at any level. I have only seen the first foul penalized. Have you?
|
So because you haven't ever seen it, you think that the ruling is wrong?
It's definitely in the case book.
FALSE DOUBLE FOUL
4.19.9 SITUATION A: A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A's basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-5)
For the record, if the ball has
PASSED THROUGH the goal before the contact in part (b), then that contact should be ignored unless deemed intentional or flagrant. If the ball is still in the goal at the time of the contact, then a foul could be called, but it wouldn't be a PC foul and wouldn't cancel the basket as the second foul in part (a) would. Therefore, I don't like it that RM grouped these two plays together without giving a detailed explanation of the proper administration. Too many people will believe that the administration is the same after reading the RM passage.