Ignore Throw-In on This One?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It is a false multiple because it is a situation where there are two fouls by the same team and the last foul is committed before clock started following first. Different opponents (Team A players) is the attribute of multiple foul absent making it false.....(clear as mud)

Originally Posted by SC Official

A false multiple doesn't have to be committed against the same opponent.

I could buy that. I think you're right.

But, why isn't it a false double? If something being missing all that is important, this could just as easily be a false double? But it is not.

I think it is more than just something missing. It is something missing but still matching same team vs opposite team.

[Nevadaref]

NFHS Definitions:
Multiple = fouls by the same team
Double = fouls by opposing teams

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NFHS Definitions:
Multiple = fouls by the same team
Double = fouls by opposing teams

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

[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 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.