Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
As JR just said, it is a simultaneous foul, which is by definition a false double foul. I am not about to climb up into a cold attic when I have to get ready to make a courier run tonight but JR has in his possession the same ancient texts that I own, which has a Case Book Play that defines a simultaneous foul as a false double foul. Back then each foul carried its own penalty, just like a double TF did and the ball was put back into play with a jump ball, just like in a double TF. Now all we do is charge the fouls and go to the Point of Interruption.
MTD, Sr.
|
Say what?
A simultaneous foul isn't and never has been a false double foul
afaik. In a false double foul, you penalize in the order that the fouls occur.
Methinks you mis-remembered what happened long ago....
We had a big argument years ago over on McGriffs about this one. At that time, only simultaneous technical fouls were covered in rule 4. Simultaneous personal fouls were covered in rule 6-3-3(g) at that time but didn't have a penalty reference attached. The whole world minus 1 person said that the penalties for a simultaneous personal foul should be the exact same as the one listed for a simultaneous technical foul---> no FT's and go to AP at that time. Before the AP, by rule we had a jump ball for both simultaneous personal and technical fouls with no FT's. That one person...YOU....tried to argue that it should be a false double foul instead and the officials had to decide which foul came first and then penalize them in order. Well, the next year....2002-03... the FED added a coda to 4-19-9 that included simultaneous personal fouls with simultaneous technical fouls with both having the same penalty.
Remember now?
From an ancient text....
COMMENTS ON THE 2002-03 RULES REVISIONS:
DEFINITION OF A SIMULTANEOUS PERSONAL FOUL ADDED (4-19-9):
The definition of a simultaneous personal foul was added to the existing definition of a simultaneous technical foul. Simultaneous personal fouls were referenced in Rule 6-3-3g and in the NFHS Handbook, but were not defined in rule 4. This addition provided consistency in rule terminology and penalty administration.
Again fwiw, a simultanous foul has never been a false double foul under the rules
afaik and I've never heard of a case play that said different.
Not that anyone really cares.....
