Jump Ball, then . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's a shame.
I can understand missing a call, but not deliberately failing to make a call.
That lacks integrity.

Technically, it is a violation. But it shouldn't be. There is no advantage being gained by that was not intended by the rules. The throwin situation should be changed to. The rules should be changed to say that a payer gaining team control in the air can always land in the backcourt.

As for integrity, there are plenty of rules that are deliberately not called because they're bad rules or the intent of the rule is not violated.

When is the last time you called a multiple foul? What about swinging of the elbows when it was a T? It was changed becasue no one would call it because the penalty was overkill for the infraction. What about 3 seconds? Every time??

[ilyazhito]

In FIBA, swinging the elbows is still a technical foul, and yet it is still called in those games. Multiple fouls, on the other hand, are rare situations (It is hard to imagine a situation where two players foul an opponent at the same time while the ball is live, so even if A1 shoots, is hit by B1 in the act of shooting, and then is hit by B2, that is a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul, unless B1 and B2 hit A1 almost at the exact same time). Usually, something will happen to suspend 3 seconds if someone is in the lane that long (someone shoots, the ball is passed to the player in the lane, or the ball is turned over), so most potential 3-second violations never materialize, even if officials would prefer to not call them. I understand your point, though, that officials exercise jury nullification by refusing to enforce rules that are bad, in their opinions.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Multiple fouls, on the other hand, are rare situations (It is hard to imagine a situation where two players foul an opponent at the same time while the ball is live, so even if A1 shoots, is hit by B1 in the act of shooting, and then is hit by B2, that is a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul, unless B1 and B2 hit A1 almost at the exact same time).

Actually, what you described is a multiple foul. Even if it were a false multiple foul, how many times do you see officials call both? It is approximately the same time...not the exact same time.

[JRutledge]

There are a ton of times a year if we wanted to we could call a multiple foul. Just like we have decided that a double foul is appropriate for situations, we have decided that multiple fouls are "never" appropriate unless we want to just confuse the hell out of everyone and be a jerk and give a foul to multiple individuals for one play. Competent officials never suggest we are not using our integrity if we choose not to call a multiple foul (unless you are on this board of course). Double fouls are often called because two players are kind of being jerks, but we often call them when they do not fit the definition as one action clearly happened first, but we suggest it is a great "game management" tool.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are a ton of times a year if we wanted to we could call a multiple foul. Just like we have decided that a double foul is appropriate for situations, we have decided that multiple fouls are "never" appropriate unless we want to just confuse the hell out of everyone and be a jerk and give a foul to multiple individuals for one play. Competent officials never suggest we are not using our integrity if we choose not to call a multiple foul (unless you are on this board of course). Double fouls are often called because two players are kind of being jerks, but we often call them when they do not fit the definition as one action clearly happened first, but we suggest it is a great "game management" tool.

Peace

I think "approximately" gives us the latitude to call a double even when one clearly happens first.

Multiple remains, and should remain, for the event where more than one player commits a flagrant foul at approximately the same time....don't let one off just because the other occurred.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think "approximately" gives us the latitude to call a double even when one clearly happens first.

I agree but we will have one player do something and clearly a delay and then the second player does something and there was a gap.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Multiple remains, and should remain, for the event where more than one player commits a flagrant foul at approximately the same time....don't let one off just because the other occurred.

I get why it remains, but I have yet to see an appropriate time to call this. That does not mean that I will not see a time, I just do not think that time is coming anytime soon.

Peace