Ignore Throw-In on This One?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

B1 commits an intentional foul on A1 who is in the act of shooting. After that but before the ball becomes dead, B2 commits his team's seventh foul against A2.

Is this to be considered a false multiple foul with the penalties administered in the order that the fouls occurred?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. It is not a false multiple. It was not committed against the same opponent. It is just two fouls....perhaps simultaneous fouls (approximately the same time but not involving any of the same players).

Camron:

If I read Freddy's play correctly, B1 commits an IPF against A1 while A1 is in the Act of Shooting. B2 then commits a CF against A2 before A1's FGA becomes Dead (e.g. the FGA is successful or the FGA is not successful), and I am thinking that B2's CF is committed during rebounding action for a possible missed FGA. If that is the case, then Freddy's play is definitely a FMF, and that each foul would carry its own penalty and would be penalized in the order that they occurred, with the Ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence was the only foul was the only foul committed.

That said, if B1 and B2 committed their fouls at the same time, by definition these fouls would still be a FMF, meaning that each foul would carry its own penalty and would be penalized in the order that they occurred, with the Ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence was the only foul was the only foul committed. But here is the problem in this second scenario: Which foul was the first foul in the sequence?

I really do not feel like climbing up into the attic and go through 47 years of Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings to see if this second scenario has been covered (I would bet dollars to donuts that it has.), but I am getting too old, to do it right now, .

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

If I read Freddy's play correctly, B1 commits an IPF against A1 while A1 is in the Act of Shooting. B2 then commits a CF against A2 before A1's FGA becomes Dead (e.g. the FGA is successful or the FGA is not successful), and I am thinking that B2's CF is committed during rebounding action for a possible missed FGA. If that is the case, then Freddy's play is definitely a FMF, and that each foul would carry its own penalty and would be penalized in the order that they occurred, with the Ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence was the only foul was the only foul committed.

That said, if B1 and B2 committed their fouls at the same time, by definition these fouls would still be a FMF, meaning that each foul would carry its own penalty and would be penalized in the order that they occurred, with the Ball being put into play as if the last foul in the sequence was the only foul was the only foul committed. But here is the problem in this second scenario: Which foul was the first foul in the sequence?

I really do not feel like climbing up into the attic and go through 47 years of Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings to see if this second scenario has been covered (I would bet dollars to donuts that it has.), but I am getting too old, to do it right now, .

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.

I think for it to be called a false multiple we have to say one occurred before the other. The definition says one happens and then the next. If the fouls did truly occur at the same time I don't think it fits under any of the definitions. Does it? Multiple foul are committed against same player.
If they are at same time I'd do what you did and penalize the common foul first and then the Intentional.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I think for it to be called a false multiple we have to say one occurred before the other. The definition says one happens and then the next. If the fouls did truly occur at the same time I don't think it fits under any of the definitions. Does it? Multiple foul are committed against same player.
If they are at same time I'd do what you did and penalize the common foul first and then the Intentional.

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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

False multiple definition clearly says one happens after the other.

No, it doesn't.

[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..,

[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."

[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

[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.