Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1011197)

A multiple foul has two aspects: 1. The fouls are committed by two (or more) teammates at approximately the same time, 2. The same opponent is fouled.

If either of those parts are absent, then the word "false" is added as a modifier.
So a false multiple foul could be either: 1. Two fouls by teammates against the same opponent, but not at approximately the same time (could just be the same time on the game clock), or 2. Two fouls by teammates at approximately the same time, but against two separate opponents.

True double fouls and false double fouls work the same way.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1011203)

Then how do simultaneous fouls fit in this? They are neither double nor multiple.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1011193)

... go through 47 years of Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings ..

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1011193)

We have two choices: 1) Penalize B1's IPF first (A1 shoots FTs with no one on the Free Throw Lane) and then B2's CF second A2 shooting Bonus FTs as if this was the only foul that occurred); or 2) Penalize B2's CF foul (A2 does not shoot any FTs and then A1 shoots FTs with no one on the Free Throw Lane followed by Team A receiving the ball for a Throw-in nearest the spot of B1's IPF).

I am inclined to choose (2) because I believe that B1's IPF is the influencing factor.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1011197)

A multiple foul has two aspects: 1. The fouls are committed by two (or more) teammates at approximately the same time, 2. The same opponent is fouled.

If either of those parts are absent, then the word "false" is added as a modifier.
So a false multiple foul could be either: 1. Two fouls by teammates against the same opponent, but not at approximately the same time (could just be the same time on the game clock), or 2. Two fouls by teammates at approximately the same time, but against two separate opponents.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 1011204)

False multiple definition clearly says one happens after the other.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1011218)

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1011230)

I can't believe that a team would lose the right to a throw-in after an IPF because another opponent committed a common foul afterwards. That just seems wrong, as you're basically giving the fouling team a type of "get out of jail free" card.

I can't find it, but would you possibly ignore the common foul after the IPF, unless that common foul was technical or flagrant... sort of like in other instances not involving a ball in flight?

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 1011233)

No you would not. Dont think of if it as losing a right to a throw in. You called another foul on the same team. If you shot two free throws for the intentional, had the ball out of bounds for the throw in and the defense fouled again before the throw in ended you'd call the foul and send them to the line if they were in bonus. If not in bonus they'd get the ball out again near the second foul.

Again, you are calling a second foul on the same team.

Originally Posted by BryanV21 (Post 1011234)

I guess I'm not thinking all the way through it.

Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 1011232)

Yes it does��.
4-19-12
A false multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more fouls by the same team and the LAST foul is committed before the clock is started following the FIRST.....

We have words FIRST and LAST in the definition. Not "simultaneous" or even "approximately same time" as we have in other places. That means one happens after the other in the definition. Also the word FOLLOWING. One follows the other..,

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1011243)

But we know from the backcourt interp that "last" and "first" can also mean "simultaneous."