Ignore Throw-In on This One?
 

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?

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).

I wish they included "Consecutive Fouls" in 4-19.

Not sure that would fit the definition of a Simultaneous Foul because that would mean fouls by both teams.

My underlying question is this: Would there ever be a circumstance where we would NOT administer the penalties for consecutive fouls in the order that they occurred? If the first foul of a false multiple foul was intentional and the second was a common foul, would we still penalize in that order? The crux of the situation is that the throw-in as a result of the intentional foul would then be ignored, and some don't agree with that.

(Justification warning)

Yes -- but the "penalty" for the IP includes a throw-in, so that part of the penalty isn't lost (unless there's some subsequent foul by A that includes a throw-in for B).

So it would be:

2 FT for A1 with the lane clear for the intentional foul
1-and-1 for A2 with the lane clear for the 7th foul
TI for A (which goes back to the first foul)?

If we follow "order of occurrence", it would be:

FT's for A1 for the intentional foul with the lanes cleared
1-and-1 for A2 with the lanes occupied and play resuming as a result

Right?

This is correct. These fouls weren't simultaneous. order of occurrence is right way to do it.

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)

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.

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

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? :eek:

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, :p.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Invalid ???
 

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?

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.

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

No, it doesn't.

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?

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..,

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.

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.

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

Any Seconds ???
 

My nomination for Post O' The Week.