One foul or two?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How could he have a common and an intentional foul on the same player?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Eh. I totally read the play wrong. Glanced at it at work and thought one player fouled and the other pushed.

My bad, East. Hah.

Despite misreading the play, I'd still go with a common foul and then a tech.

[deecee]

From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by deecee

From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.

I can see coaches around here blowing a gasket over this call. Nonetheless, this is the correct call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

From what was described common foul for initial contact then a dead ball contact Technical.

Simply calling an intentional foul is incorrect unless you passed on the initial contact. But then the argument is you had a take-foul situation and you allowed the play to escalate to an INT foul.

Your only course of action is common then T. The alternative is just crappy officiating either way IMO. You either passed on the first contact and allowed escalation or you adjudicated 2 individual actions as one.

The correct path is most likely the path of most resistance during the game.

Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.

"The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down."

If this is how the play went down what would you call?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dad

"The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down."

If this is how the play went down what would you call?

Not enough information. My whistle isn't that long and I'm hitting it the second contact happens in a take foul situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dad

"The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down."

If this is how the play went down what would you call?

If it happened that instant, it seems it was already in progress and could easily be part of that action. Can't really say....unless he is suggesting his whistle what really long.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.

Agree -- this is being radically shaped by how people are picturing the play. My initial picture was a foul followed by a push because the player was still trying to get the ref to call the foul. That to me is just a common foul, followed by a nothing.

But if it's a more violent push or more clearly after play is stopped, the whole scenario changes radically and common foul plus tech makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I'm hard pressed to see an intentional foul here with a common foul occurring first.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Agree -- this is being radically shaped by how people are picturing the play. My initial picture was a foul followed by a push because the player was still trying to get the ref to call the foul. That to me is just a common foul, followed by a nothing.

But if it's a more violent push or more clearly after play is stopped, the whole scenario changes radically and common foul plus tech makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I'm hard pressed to see an intentional foul here with a common foul occurring first.

If I'm right on top of it, and the player's initial foul turns to an intentional foul before I can even finish blowing my whistle, I'm escalating to an intentional foul. We can't ignore a player being shoved down.

[bob jenkins]

I've had a similar play and gone with common plus CDBT (in NCAAW). Some confusion from the coach, but no real issues.

[JetMetFan]

I'm in the "I would like to see the play" camp. If there's contact - whistle - (beat) - push, that's common and a T. I guess a question would be did it appear the defender was going to follow through with the contact on the common foul? That would be the one way to justify an IF. If they stopped themselves and then shoved, that's a T. Based on the OP it sounds as though the latter is what happened.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Or the "two" actions were really one extended action.

It sounds to me like the push came before the whistle was sounded. If it was that quick, it could very well have been one act.

I think I'd have to see it to know if I'd consider it one act or two.

Agree