Ignore Throw-In on This One?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

False multiple definition clearly says one happens after the other. If the fouls truly happened at same time against different opponents it doesn't meet the multiple definition or false multiple definition. If they happen against different opponents we have to choose one as coming firstvto make it fit a definition. The false multiple.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Simultaneous Foul are not part of this play. Simultaneous Fouls are really False Double Fouls where no FTs are attempted by either team.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

Don't bother. If it's not in the "current literature" it doesn't exist.

If an old casebook fell in the forest, and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a sound?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

This is the crux of the issue as it was asked of me and as I brought it up here. Though this may be perceived as an influencing factor, I can't find any rules basis for preferring #2 over #1.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Or, both could be absent -- two fouls against different opponents not at approximately the same time

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

False multiple definition clearly says one happens after the other.

No, it doesn't.

[BryanV21]

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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, it doesn't.

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..,

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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?

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

Perhaps thinking about a slightly different scenario would help: instead of the foul occurring while the ball was in flight, let's move the foul. Let's have the second foul occur while team A is inbounding the ball after the IPF but before it is in play. Clearly, we shoot bonus FT(s) with players in the lane, right? Kinda the same: the FTs take precedence over the inbound play and we move on.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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..,

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

My nomination for Post O' The Week.