One foul or two?
 

Last half-minute of overtime, A up three points, and in possession. I'm the T.

A-1 is holding the ball near the division line. B-2 runs toward him and tries to foul, blocking him. (The play on the ball was minimal, but enough to go common.) The instant my whistle ends, B-2 shoves A-1 down. I immediately opted for the intentional foul.

Were there no shove, I would've stuck with a common foul. However, it could be argued to go with a common and a technical, for the dead ball contact.

Thoughts?

From your description, I don't see not reporting both fouls. If you have enough plausibility to say the whistle was for the intentional foul, you can do that but when it's after the whistle, I don't see where you have the choice.

I'm not sure you understood the question. He's debating common AND an intentional or common AND a tech. At least I hope this is the case. Calling a foul and then deciding not to because of an intentional foul after is poor officiating.

I'd have gone common and then a technical here. This kind of play after a foul call is a two and you're outa here. Depending on the shove I may just get rid of the player then and there, but it would have to be pretty bad.

No. Here, it's intentional or common and technical.

Common foul and intentional technical foul for the dead ball contact.

Oh. Weird. What's the reasoning behind discounting the initial foul?

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.

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.

If it happens quickly enough, I may just consider it once action and call it intentional. But if it's clearly 2 separate actions, I'd call a common followed by a technical.

On a take foul, my whistle is pretty instantaneous, so....

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?

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

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.