Fun With A Block And Maybe A Charge ...

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Imagine (didn't happen here) if one official had ruled a "push from behind" foul and another had ruled a player control foul, not the classic "blarge" double foul where both gave opposing preliminary signals, but in this case where neither gave a preliminary signal other than a fist in the air, and they got together to discuss a possible false double foul. "I saw your push but then he smashed into and took out my guy during a live ball. I saw that player control foul coming all the way from here to downtown".

Agree with all of this. No prelim signals = great to talk over with your partner(s) to figure out what happened first, or whether the push wasn’t really a foul worth calling.

But what if there were two distinct and robust preliminary signals here (one for a push, one for a PC)? If this were a blarge scenario, the case books for NFHS and NCAA-M basically say you have to go with a double foul. So by extension, in this scenario, would you have to go with a simultaneous foul?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

But what if there were two distinct and robust preliminary signals here (one for a push, one for a PC)? If this were a blarge scenario, the case books for NFHS ... basically say you have to go with a double foul ...

We're not talking about one "contact event" here, like the famous casebook play with two opposing rulings on one "contact event".

Wouldn't a discussion between officials come to the conclusion that these were two separate fouls at two different times (second foul during a continuous motion airborne shooter live ball) and thus a false double foul?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We're not talking about one "contact event" here, like the famous casebook play with two opposing rulings on one "contact event".

Wouldn't a discussion between officials come to the conclusion that these were two separate fouls at two different times (second foul during a continuous motion airborne shooter live ball) and thus a false double foul?

That is certainly one way to look at it. When I was talking about a simultaneous foul, I was taking liberty from the definition of such that allows the two fouls to happen at approximately the same time.

But if you were to go false double here (again, this is all hypothetical and on the basis of two emphatic signals that would be hard for a crew to extricate itself from), that could certainly be appropriate (and one of the few times a false double foul did not have at least one technical foul involved). Now just imagine if the offensive team were in the bonus; they’d shoot a bonus with the lane cleared followed by the defensive team getting a backcourt throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

It's much the same as previous discussions we've had here before on when does a blarge become a blarge.

Nothing good can come from discussing it further.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Nothing good can come from discussing it further.

Fun's over. Thanks for playing. bob says it's time for everybody to go home.

I agree. Street lights are starting to come on.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Most here know that I prefer Charges to Blocks. This play is a difficult one to call and I will be honest I think that it would be very difficult to rule that a Charging Foul. I honestly think that the most logical call is that that W20 Pushed B5 rather that saying that B5 Charged into W2 before W20 Pushed B5.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I honestly think that the most logical call is that that W20 Pushed B5 rather that saying that B5 Charged into W2 before W20 Pushed B5.

That's not what happened, it was different order of contact events. B5 "contacted" W2 after W20 "contacted" B5. That's the order of what actually happened. We can always debate whether, or not, a foul, or fouls, should have been charged, but we can't change the order of "contact" events.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

That is certainly one way to look at it. When I was talking about a simultaneous foul, I was taking liberty from the definition of such that allows the two fouls to happen at approximately the same time.

But if you were to go false double here (again, this is all hypothetical and on the basis of two emphatic signals that would be hard for a crew to extricate itself from), that could certainly be appropriate (and one of the few times a false double foul did not have at least one technical foul involved). Now just imagine if the offensive team were in the bonus; they’d shoot a bonus with the lane cleared followed by the defensive team getting a backcourt throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The part that you write about the administration if the bonus is involved is not correct. Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting, the first defensive foul would make the ball immediately dead, so there would not be a PC foul and the bonus would be awarded as normal with players along the lane.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Unless the offensive player is in the act of shooting...

He wasn’t?

Edit: Now that I think about it, since he’s in the act of shooting (which I would argue he was), in a FDF situation he gets two shots with the lane cleared regardless, right? Bonus doesn’t play into it (duh), and even if the ball goes in, the PCF negates the field goal which is what brings us back to two FTs.

Bob’s eyes must be rolling into the back of his head right about now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

He wasn’t?

Edit: Now that I think about it, since he’s in the act of shooting (which I would argue he was), in a FDF situation he gets two shots with the lane cleared regardless, right? Bonus doesn’t play into it (duh), and even if the ball goes in, the PCF negates the field goal which is what brings us back to two FTs.

Bob’s eyes must be rolling into the back of his head right about now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you’ve got it, sir!