False Double Foul or Not?
 

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?

The push by B1 from behind is a foul. You have said the push caused the crash. Give A 1 2 shots.

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.

Go ahead, I double dare you to call it.

And it wasn't opponents fouling each other.

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."

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

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.

Just to clarify what Adam was clarifying about ODogs clarification of BNR's clarification of Nevada's comment on ODogs..... :eek:

Seriously, I have no idea who was saying what after all of that....but I think all were probably saying the same thing.

It IS a FDF both because the fouls were not at approximately the same time AND because it wasn't two opponents against each other. It only takes the absence of one to be a FDF but in this case, both elements of the double foul were absent, yet they occurred with no time having elapsed off the clock. The last point (the clock) is what leads to them being classified as a FDF instead of just two unrelated fouls.

I wish to concur with that clarification of ...:cool:

So --- odog's post was a false double clarification?

by rule, yes.

I think that is a multiple foul. :eek: