Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …

[crosscountry55]

The preventative officiating stunk here. While we’re not sure of the time in the 4th period, the “announcers” were talking about black needing to give two more fouls. So if they could tell what was going on, why couldn’t the crew? There are times for calling the touch foul when the offending team clearly wants that call. This was one of those times. On top of that, if the calling official senses the brewing animosity and runs toward the players, it probably prevents the ball shove.

That commentary notwithstanding, I think option D) is correct by rule given what actually occurred. I’ve got a DF (with one element being intentional*) followed by the unsporting T on black.

* In NFHS, there are still no FTs when part of a DF is of higher severity. NCAA (I think both M and W) call for the penalty assessment to proceed as if the lesser foul had not occurred (even though it is still charged). But no such rule in NFHS; it’s just POI.

Reasonable officials could disagree here on DF vs. FDF. For example, I like Raymond’s FDF solution and then ignore the ball shove. The end result seems the most just in that case: Black gets White closer to the bonus as they wanted, but first Black will shoot two and get the ball for White’s buffoonery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

The preventative officiating stunk here. While we’re not sure of the time in the 4th period, the “announcers” were talking about black needing to give two more fouls. So if they could tell what was going on, why couldn’t the crew? There are times for calling the touch foul when the offending team clearly wants that call.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1041317

Agree. From my pregame:

Near the end of the game, be aware of coaches requesting timeouts and be sure to inform them after they have used all their time outs. Near the end of the game, give the defense a chance to steal the ball before a quick whistle. When team is trying to foul, call foul immediately when contact occurs so the ball handler doesn't get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey, pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player, we should consider an intentional foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I’ve got a DF (with one element being intentional*) followed by the unsporting T on black.*In NFHS, there are still no FTs when part of a DF is of higher severity. NCAA (I think both M and W) call for the penalty assessment to proceed as if the lesser foul had not occurred (even though it is still charged). But no such rule in NFHS; it’s just POI.

These are questions, not answers (because I don't have any answers).

A double personal foul means no free throws and point of interruption. But what if one foul had been ruled an intentional foul? Don't we always have to shoot free throws on intentional fouls? Wouldn't this be better described as a false double foul (fouls by both teams and one of the attributes of a double foul (same penalties) is absent)?

What if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time and only one of the two fouls is an intentional foul? How would we penalize two opponents fouling each other at exactly the same time with only one of the two fouls (same exact time) ruled as an intentional foul: free throws, or no free throws; ball to offended (intentionally fouled) team, or point of interruption?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

In NFHS, there are still no FTs when part of a DF is of higher severity ... in NFHS; it’s just POI.

Hey crosscountry55, not disagreeing, sounds reasonable, and I don't have an opposing citation, but is there a citation for this (your post immediately above) if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time and only one of the two fouls is an intentional foul)?

Now a double foul, exactly the same time, both are intentional, must (maybe) be a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption), otherwise in what order would one shoot free throws? Maybe this is the rationale to use to decide that even if only one of the two fouls is intentional, it's still a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption).

Of course it's all academic. In the video, the whistled live ball handcheck foul clearly preceded (not at the same time) the dead ball intentional elbow foul.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hey crosscountry55, not disagreeing, sounds reasonable, and I don't have an opposing citation, but is there a citation for this (your post immediately above) if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time and only one of the two fouls is an intentional foul)?

Implied from Rule 10 PENALTIES:

Rule 10 Penalties Summary

1. No free throws:
…
c. For double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).
…
NOTE: If one or both fouls of a double foul are flagrant, no free throws are awarded. Any player who commits a flagrant foul is disqualified.

We had a discussion on this forum a few years ago and the consensus was that intentional fouls were also understood to be included in this, though the language could be more clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Implied from Rule 10 PENALTIES

Great citation crosscountry55. Thanks.

4-19-8-A: A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized. Double fouls: A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Rule 10 Penalties Summary 1-C: No free throws: For double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).
NOTE: If one or both fouls of a double foul are flagrant, no free throws are awarded.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

We had a discussion on this forum a few years ago and the consensus was that intentional fouls were also understood to be included in this, though the language could be more clear.

Agree that it could be more clear, but the implication works for me.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How would we penalize two opponents fouling each other at exactly the same time with only one of the two fouls (same exact time) ruled as an intentional foul: free throws, or no free throws; ball to offended (intentionally fouled) team, or point of interruption?

I believe that we have the answer: Double foul (not a false double). No free throws (not two free throws, even though we have an intentional foul). Point of interruption (not to offended intentionally fouled team, even though we have an intentional foul).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... a double foul, exactly the same time, both are intentional, must ... be a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption), otherwise in what order would one shoot free throws? Maybe this is the rationale to use to decide that even if only one of the two fouls is intentional, it's still a double foul (no free throws, point of interruption).

I was headed down the right path, got it into the red zone, but couldn't come up with the coup de grâce across the finish line.