Ignore Throw-In on This One?

[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?

[Camron Rust]

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?

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).

[Freddy]

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).

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.

[bob jenkins]

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?

(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 cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(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)?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

[BigCat]

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).

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)

[SC Official]

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).

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

[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

[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.

[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.