Simultaneous Foul Involving Shooter

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SC Official

MTD, any foul that is part of a simultaneous foul is not a common foul, by definition.

Doesn't need to be, it's still committed by a teammate of the shooter, which is the actual wording of the rule.

[griblets]

So, I was the official at C that called the foul on A2 pushing to get rebound position. My partner at L called the shooting foul. As he came around, I asked what he had. When he told me only the shooter as he passed by, I realized he had no idea I had a double whistle (gym was very loud). Knowing that nobody else knew I had something different, I made a quick decision that my foul was insignificant to the play, and went to L to administer the free throw.

Upon searching previous threads, I found support for my action.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Had this play in an NCAA scrimmage. Final Four official observing said we need to go with the shooting foul and rule the rebounding foul as incidental contact (which is what the 2 officials decided, they just took too long to accomplish it).

Right or wrong? It's right when I'm working for certain supervisors.

[Nevadaref]

I find this kind of advice by high level officials to be terribly misleading.

There is an element of quality advice to it, which is the principle of keeping it simple. When officials call oddball & unexpected things the possibility of problems is introduced because (a) the officials may not administer the situation correctly and (b) the coaches, players, and spectators likely will not understand or accept the decision very easily and this can upset the human emotions in the game leading to further issues.

On the other hand, the phrasing of this advice could send the wrong message to the crew being observed. They may comprehend that the official is telling them to ignore a clear foul. I hope that isn't what is being communicated and that the higher level observer isn't advocating administering the rules incorrectly. What I hope is being offered is that the off-ball official be much more patient with his whistle and have a higher threshhold for what constitutes a rebounding foul in a situation in which no rebound will occur. This thinking has merit to it because there isn't going to be a possession consequence to the contact, so the only reason that it would need to be called is to clean up rough play, in which case the contact should be rather significant.

If after hearing that advice, the off-ball official still deemed that that the pushing foul needed to be called (perhaps the opponent was shoved to the floor), then I would advise the crew that they better know the rules on how to penalize these two fouls. Handling strange plays with certainty and precision, as well as communicating the procedure well, carries a lot of wieght in the evaluation.

[SNIPERBBB]

If you could determine which foul happened first, you could ignore the second foul if it doesn't reach the level of being a dead ball contact foul. Sans video assistance, unless one of the calling officials was able to both actions, odds are that isn't going to happen.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If you could determine which foul happened first, you could ignore the second foul if it doesn't reach the level of being a dead ball contact foul.

Not (by rule) if the first foul is committed against the shooter -- the ball isn't dead until the try ends, so the second "foul" is still during a live ball.

I agree with Nevada on the patient whistle part. I might go so far as to say very few "rebounding" fouls should be whistled until there's a rebound -- even if the push happened a second or two earlier.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not (by rule) if the first foul is committed against the shooter -- the ball isn't dead until the try ends, so the second "foul" is still during a live ball.

I agree with Nevada on the patient whistle part. I might go so far as to say very few "rebounding" fouls should be whistled until there's a rebound -- even if the push happened a second or two earlier.

That makes sense. Imagine this conversation...

Coach: Why did you call a foul on A2?
Official: It was a rebounding foul on him.
Coach: What rebound?
Official: Well, if it wasn't for the foul against the shooter, and the shot missed, there would have been a rebound.
Coach: But there was no rebound, so how can there be a foul on it?

Yeah, I'm sure you can explain a simultaneous foul and whatnot. Just thought that conversation would be funny. Or not.. you can decide. LOL

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

If you could determine which foul happened first, you could ignore the second foul if it doesn't reach the level of being a dead ball contact foul. Sans video assistance, unless one of the calling officials was able to both actions, odds are that isn't going to happen.

If one happened first, you don't have a simultaneous foul, but rather a false double foul.