Make the call
 

A1 is dribbling ball up in backcourt. A2 is running in FC and meets up with B2. Both have attitude and shove each other at same time. No words. What is call. NFHS/NCAA men

Double Technical foul. No FTs awarded, go to POI.

Come on, big money!

Adios to A2 and B2, flagrant fouls to each. Add the fouls to each team's totals. Team A inbounds the ball in the backcourt.

The Ball was Live when A2 and B2 committed the fouls against each other, therefore the foul is a Double Personal Foul under both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules.

MTD, Sr.

Bingo. You can deem one or both parts flagrant, but by definition you cannot deem them technical.

Which brings up some interesting sidebars:

1. NFHS: Suppose one part of the double personal foul is intentional or flagrant, and the other is common? What do you do?

2. NCAA: Suppose one part of the double personal foul is F1 or F2 and the other part is not the same. What do you do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NCAAW (and I think Men is the same, except the throw-in is at the division line)

Art. 10. After any double personal or technical fouls or any simultaneous personal or technical fouls when there is team control and only one of the fouls is a flagrant foul, play shall be resumed with a throw-in to the offended team at the point of interruption

Got it. So in NCAA, still no free throws, but there is some penalty for the more egregious side of the double foul in that the offended team gets the ball regardless of who had team control to begin with.

What if there is an unbalanced double technical when there is NOT team control (e.g. during a dead ball)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I brought this situation up because i dont like the fact that because the ball was live our only choices are double intentional fouls or flagrant. Flagrant is too severe for the situation im envisioning and double personals isnt severe enough.

Id like to have the option to call it a T. Player might change attitude knowing he gets another he is ejected and suspended. As a practical matter, if a player acts up again after we call the double personal we can just call that flagrant and toss him. I havnt thought too deeply about it but not sure why they dont allow us to call double Ts.

I'm not defending my wrong answer, but I agree with BigCat here.

Art. 11.
After any double personal or technical fouls or any simultaneous
personal or technical fouls when there is no team control and neither foul is
a flagrant foul nor contact dead ball technical foul, play shall resume at the
point of interruption�
Art. 12.
After any double personal or technical fouls or any simultaneous
personal or technical fouls when there is no team control (excluding when a try is in flight) and one of the fouls is a flagrant foul or contact dead ball technical foul, play shall be resumed with a throw-in to the offended team at the point of interruption�
Art. 13.
After any double personal or technical fouls or any simultaneous
personal or technical fouls when one of the fouls is a flagrant foul and is committed while a try is in flight:
a� When the try is successful, the ball is awarded to the offended team at the end line for a single contact dead ball technical foul or a single
flagrant 2 technical foul�
b� When the try is unsuccessful, the ball is awarded to the offended team
at a designated spot nearest to where the try was unsuccessful for a single contact dead ball technical foul or a single flagrant 2 technical foul�

This is why i put it out there. There are a lot of people who think double Ts are available. I think they should be but they're not under rules we have now.

Incorrect, in NCAA-Men's, all appropriate free throws are shot if one of the fouls is a flagrant.

Rule 10-1 Penalty:
"f . There shall be no free throws for any double personal or simultaneous personal fouls and the ball shall be put into play at the point of interruption unless only one of the fouls is a flagrant foul. In such case, when a common foul penalty requires free throws, the free throws for the common foul will be administered with no players in the marked lane spaces followed by the free throws for the flagrant personal foul with no players in the marked lane spaces. Play will be resumed at the point of interruption with the ball awarded to the team offended by the flagrant personal foul. [Exception: A single flagrant 2 technical foul or a single contact dead ball technical foul.]"

Cool, thanks. Same for NCAA-W or different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The books are available on line.

e.
There shall be no free throws for any double personal or simultaneous
personal fouls and the ball shall be put into play at the point of
interruption unless only one of the fouls is a flagrant foul. In such
case, when a common foul penalty requires free throws, the free
throws for the common foul will be administered with no players in
the marked lane spaces followed by the free throws for the flagrant
personal foul with no players in the marked lane spaces. Play will be
resumed at the point of interruption with a throw-in awarded to the
team offended by the flagrant personal foul.

For funsies, no one see this as a fighting act, worthy of flagrant fouls and disqualification?

Well, im pretty sure im the only referee who saw it...and no, it did not rise to a fighting act. It was BS but nothing id toss somebody over. Now, I would have liked to have called double Ts but that wasnt an option.

I used the phrase "shoved each other with attitude" because I was trying to describe something that wasnt flagrant but was more than a regular foul. Can a shove be a fighting act? Sure, but just because there was a shove doesnt mean it was a fighting act. You would have to actually...see it. Thx

As described? No.

Agree. The definition of fighting involves a combative act such as a kick, punch, strike…things of that nature. A mutual shove does not rise to this level.

Rule 4....live it, love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, it was a decent question as we can flagrant without any contact or attempt of it. Yeah the pushing is something, but who knows what provoked them.

What you describe would be a flagrant technical, and you can always make that ruling, live ball or not. Taunt first, then mutual shove? Party on with your flagrant tech followed by a double tech if you'd like (all part of a false double foul master-sequence).

But as described, what we have is neither technical nor flagrant.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As this play is described it could never be a technical foul.

4.19.5 A technical foul is

a. A foul by a non player
b. A noncontact foul by a player
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter
d. A direct technical, charged to the head coach...in 10.6
e. An indirect technical charged to the head coach...in 10.5

Yes, I know. That's why I posted it. Some folks don't realize it.

So to clarify: You did NOT have two players square up to one another and then push each other, playground-style, with two pairs of arms extended? Was this just a "get off me" kind of thing?

I'm sorry. I can't make it much clearer. 2 players came together just outside the lane above the block and shoved each other with attitude. Not sure what you mean by "square up" and "playground style."

It wasn't a basketball play but it wasn't enough to toss either of them.