One foul or two?

[bainsey]

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

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

[Dad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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....

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

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

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[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.

[NNJOfficial]

It sounds like the correct call is common then T, unless as has been pointed out, it's all part of the same initial contact.

I think another question you have to ask is why did this happen? Did you take too long to recognize the take foul and thus the defender felt it was necessary to make the contact more blatant or did something occur between the players that caused the defender to shove the ball handler?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk