Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

What is correct ruling on this multiple contact situation? As the whistle is being blown to charge Black #3 with a handchecking foul, White #24 hits Black #3 above the shoulders with an elbow. Black #3 retaliates by pushing White #24 and batting the ball away.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...3ha1XCenJH.mp4

How should this activity be ruled?
A) Personal Foul on Black #3: Rule on the handchecking foul, separate players and assess no further penalty.
B) Double Personal Foul: Charge both Black #3 and White #24 with a personal foul as both fouls occurred at the same time. Ignore dead ball contact by Black #3.
C) Double Personal Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul. Ignore dead ball contact by Black #3.
D) Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul that occurs at approximately the same time. Then charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical foul for dead ball contact.
E) One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls: Charge Black #3 with personal foul

Five choices (don’t fully align with choices above): Personal Foul on Black #3; Double Personal Foul; One Personal Foul and One Double Technical Foul; Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul; One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls.

My comment: One Personal Foul and Two Technical Fouls. Charge Black #3 with personal foul. Contact after the ball has become dead is incidental unless it is ruled intentional. An elbow in excessive movement should be an intentional foul (or possibly a flagrant foul).

Thoughts?

Double Foul ???
 

What if the hand check and the elbow occurred at exactly the same time, instead of approximately the same time?

It's this a real option by rule?

Double Personal Foul and a Technical Foul: Charge Black #3 with a personal foul and White #24 with an intentional personal foul that occurs at approximately the same time. Then charge Black #3 with an Intentional Technical foul for dead ball contact.

A double personal foul means no free throws and point of interruption. But what if one foul had been ruled an intentional foul (moving elbow to the head)?

Don't we always have to shoot free throws on intentional fouls?

Wouldn't this (exactly the same time, one being ruled an intentional foul) 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)?

So my question is: What if two opponents foul each other at exactly the same time (didn't happen in the video) and one of the two fouls is an intentional foul? Absent the subsequent technical foul in this video, how would we penalize two opponents fouling each other at exactly the same time with one of the two fouls ruled as an intentional foul: free throws, or no free throws; ball to offended (intentionally fouled) team, or point of interruption? Absent the subsequent technical foul in this video, is this (exactly the same time) a double foul situation, or a false double foul situation?

I'm calling a personal foul on Black and then a technical foul, very close to a flagrant technical foul, on White.

I'm not calling a technical foul on black after he gets elbowed in the face for knocking the ball out of the white player's hand.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Call the foul on black for holding the jersey and none of the rest of this happens.

My sentiments exactly.

Peace

Possible Intentional Foul Jersey Grab ...
 

Good point. Agree. I missed the possible intentional foul jersey grab the first time through. But it was missed and we need to adjudicate what actually did happen.

I am not calling that an intentional foul either. Just call a foul and move on. Why do guys want to make everything intentional, he is trying to defend he just grabs the jersey. All jersey pulls are not intentional fouls. No more than if he grabbed his arm IMO.

Peace

Grabbing A Handful Of Jersey ...
 

I respect your opinion. When in Rome ...

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, grabbing a handful of jersey (or a bear hug, or a push from behind) anytime, but especially away from the ball, is not considered a basketball play and is usually (if not automatically) considered to be an intentional foul.

Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

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

Ball Handler Doesn't Get Hit Harder To Draw A Whistle ...
 

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.

Double Foul Questions ...
 

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?

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.

Fun With Multiple Illegal Contacts …
 

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

Implication ...
 

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.

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

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).

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.

Not sure how this is away from the ball when the very people involved with the ball is going to that area? And this is not about what corner you live in, I think this is apart of the play, and yes it is a jersey grab, but if that is the case, all jersey grabs are fouls or any hold where players are trying to get to a position. I think this play in particular is not one of those situations that warrants an intentional foul. That is an opinion that is based on experience and judgment, nothing else.

Peace

Agree. This is not a play where a player reached out and grabbed his opponent's jersey as he was breaking away. He was already holding on to the jersey. If anything we need to do a better job of calling the hold immediately while they are at close quarters.

This action often begins before the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in (though not on this play), and I have plenty of times addressed those players before the ball became live.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk