Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
These are good citations, however, they both seem to describe simultaneous acts, or, a situation where one act is clearly not stated as happening before/or after the other one.
Let me keep it simple. For me. Not for you. Live Ball. Clock running. A1 and B1 down in the post. The official sees A1 land a punch on B1. Whistle is blown. Official sees B1 retaliate by landing a punch on A1.
My opinion, but I can be persuaded otherwise: A1 charged with flagrant personal foul (live ball contact). That foul, not the whistle, makes the ball dead. B1 is charged with a flagrant technical foul (dead ball contact).
Yet 10-3-8 (A player shall not be charged with fighting) makes we wonder if both of these are technical fouls? I believe that you can't have a double foul that includes one personal, and one technical? Inquiring minds, and confused minds, want to know. Help.
|
1. The citations are intended to show that the FIRST foul, which is a contact foul during a live ball, is a personal foul. That was the only point that I was making with these references. I didn't really care about the second foul. Perhaps I should simply find a play ruling in which there is only one punch and no response during a live ball. That would be clearer. I'll look for it.
2. You are correct that both fouls of a double foul must be either both personal or both technical.
3. Assuming no try for goal is involved, the foul does make the ball dead, not the whistle. You are correct about that. However, when the response by the opponent occurs almost immediately, the best ruling is to treat the fouls as happening at "approximately the same time." That makes them constitute a double foul.
4. If you have a serious time lag between the two offences, I would say more than a couple of seconds, then you have to go with a false double foul and penalize each one separately and in the order in which they occurred.
5. 10-3-8 must be taken in context. It means fighting during a dead ball.