False Double Foul or Not?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by grunewar

A1 is dribbling down the court and at the top of the key beats defender B1. As he goes down the lane he jumps for a shot and is pushed by B1 from behind. B2 has legal guarding position in front of A1, and the push by B1 causes A1 to crash into B2 before returning to the floor. The shot is missed.

4.19.9 Situation A

Does the push, causing A1 to crash into B1, have any bearing on the ruling?

If you were to all it, then it would be a false double foul. Foul 2 happened after the first but before the clock started following the first.

That said, I'm almost certain that the push by B1 caused it...and I didn't even see it. As such, A1 didn't foul B2 at all since A1's action didn't cause the contact. B1's actions did.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you were to call it, then it would be a false double foul. Foul 2 happened after the first but before the clock started following the first.

And it wasn't opponents fouling each other.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ODog

And it wasn't opponents fouling each other.

Opponents fouling each other is not part of the definition of a FDF.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Opponents fouling each other is not part of the definition of a FDF.

It is one of the two aspects of a double foul along with the fouls occurring at approximately the same time. For a false double foul, one of the two aspects of a double foul is absent. That is what makes it "false."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is one of the two aspects of a double foul along with the fouls occurring at approximately the same time. For a false double foul, one of the two aspects of a double foul is absent. That is what makes it "false."

He meant that it's not one of the requirements for a FDF.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Adam

He meant that it's not one of the requirements for a FDF.

Nope. I meant exactly what Nevadaref said, word for word.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ODog

Nope. I meant exactly what Nevadaref said, word for word.

I wasn't clarifying your post. I was clarifying BNR's post, which is who Nevadaref quoted.