Originally Posted by MOofficial (Post 1004393)

So between the real job and ample amounts of reading, I'm still not seeing much as far as correct/incorrect ruling on the personal foul followed by the F1.

While I was watching the game, that ruling just didn't seem right. Can someone help me out?

We all know what they called and how it was administered.

My questions - After the personal foul, the ball becomes dead, at that moment, any contact that is illegal and excessive would have to become a dead ball contact technical foul. Is that correct or incorrect? If administered as a personal foul and then a dead ball contact, they would shoot the personal foul first (if in bonus), then the dead ball contact, with the ball being awarded at the division line for a throw in?

Sorry if it has already been discussed in this thread, I just haven't found it yet.

Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure this year!

Originally Posted by MOofficial (Post 1004393)

So between the real job and ample amounts of reading, I'm still not seeing much as far as correct/incorrect ruling on the personal foul followed by the F1.

While I was watching the game, that ruling just didn't seem right. Can someone help me out?

We all know what they called and how it was administered.

My questions - After the personal foul, the ball becomes dead, at that moment, any contact that is illegal and excessive would have to become a dead ball contact technical foul. Is that correct or incorrect? If administered as a personal foul and then a dead ball contact, they would shoot the personal foul first (if in bonus), then the dead ball contact, with the ball being awarded at the division line for a throw in?

Sorry if it has already been discussed in this thread, I just haven't found it yet.

Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure this year!

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 1004320)

8:02 of the 2nd half. I believe the double foul should have been a false double foul with the second foul being a dead ball contact technical foul.

I just listened to the audio of Verne Harris explaining the call to the television commentators. He said there was a foul on #2 White FOLLOWED by an F1 on Karnowski. He didn't say it was a double foul. He said there was one foul followed by another foul.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by MOofficial (Post 1004393)

So between the real job and ample amounts of reading, I'm still not seeing much as far as correct/incorrect ruling on the personal foul followed by the F1.



While I was watching the game, that ruling just didn't seem right. Can someone help me out?



We all know what they called and how it was administered.



My questions - After the personal foul, the ball becomes dead, at that moment, any contact that is illegal and excessive would have to become a dead ball contact technical foul. Is that correct or incorrect? If administered as a personal foul and then a dead ball contact, they would shoot the personal foul first (if in bonus), then the dead ball contact, with the ball being awarded at the division line for a throw in?



Sorry if it has already been discussed in this thread, I just haven't found it yet.



Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure this year!

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1004396)

From what I saw, it was ruled a double-foul that involved a F1 on Gonzaga #24 and common foul UNC #2. From there, the procedure is as follows:



The penalty for double fouls is no free throws and play

is resumed at the point of interruption unless one of the fouls is

a flagrant foul. Gonzaga #24 will shoot a one-and-one free throw with no

players in the marked lane spaces for the common foul charged to

UNC #2. Following these free throws, UNC #2 will shoot two free throws with

no players in the marked lane spaces for the flagrant 1 personal foul

charged to Gonzaga #24. Play is resumed with a throw-in to UNC at the point

of interruption, which is nearest to where the fouls occurred.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1004401)

I think dahoopref has it right. That I'm aware, there is no "unless" clause in NFHS. It's important to point this out because most forum members are not collegiate officials, and what was administered on TV last night would not be the way to administer it in a high school game.

As to whether this could/should have been a false double foul……meh. I think this was so bang-bang that it qualifies as "two fouls committed by opponents against each other at approximately the same time" per the definition of a double foul. I was ok with the ruling (if not the use of the word "followed" in the explanation to the TV crew).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1004328)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GXqF9sKbs-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Originally Posted by thedewed (Post 1004412)

one clue for officials on this is if the shooter goes down in a direction not consistent with the direction that the contact came from, then consider the possibility it was a flop. good grief. there was another one from the left wing same half for UNC that was same situation, very minor contact that shouldn't have been called. I'm glad some NBA guys and media are calling out the tightness of the calls during this game. I think Collins from Gonzaga in particular got a raw deal. May help an adjustment to a little looser whistle to looking for advantage as more of a factor.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 1004320)

8:02 of the 2nd half. I believe the double foul should have been a false double foul with the second foul being a dead ball contact technical foul.

I just listened to the audio of Verne Harris explaining the call to the television commentators. He said there was a foul on #2 White FOLLOWED by an F1 on Karnowski. He didn't say it was a double foul. He said there was one foul followed by another foul.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 1004670)

Any chance of getting this play posted still? Thanks if you can

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1004299)

10:13 left
Is Meeks correct that Tillie traveled after the defensive rebound?

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 1004396)

From what I saw, it was ruled a double-foul that involved a F1 on Gonzaga #24 and common foul UNC #2. From there, the procedure is as follows:

The penalty for double fouls is no free throws and play
is resumed at the point of interruption unless one of the fouls is
a flagrant foul. Gonzaga #24 will shoot a one-and-one free throw with no
players in the marked lane spaces for the common foul charged to
UNC #2. Following these free throws, UNC #2 will shoot two free throws with
no players in the marked lane spaces for the flagrant 1 personal foul
charged to Gonzaga #24. Play is resumed with a throw-in to UNC at the point
of interruption, which is nearest to where the fouls occurred.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1004415)

Agree. The shooter stuck his foot out to make contact. Reggie Miller would have been proud.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 1004816)

7-4-10 says when one of the doubles is flagrant the ball goes to offended team on either side of division line. I don't think NC fouled him but I understand the call. I saw this as false double. Personal and a dead ball contact T. The result should have been same. What they did but NC should have gotten ball at either side of division line.