Technical Foul ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... this is considered approximately the same time as the first foul ... double foul ...

IAABO (whom I am questioning) says no to double foul (though not the aspect I'm questioning).

Can half of a double foul be intentional?

Double foul implies no free throws.

Intentional foul implies two free throws.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO (whom I am questioning) says no to double foul (though not the aspect I'm questioning).

Can half of a double foul be intentional?

Double foul implies no free throws.

Intentional foul implies two free throws.

Yes, half of a double foul can be intentional. The ruling on that is no FTs at all.

The definition of double fouls doesn't preclude one of them being of a different severity than the other....just two "personal" fouls against each other. Then, the penalties go on to say that there are no FTs for double personal fouls.

The rule only explicitly talks about flagrant fouls in this context but that is as a note to explain the rule and there is no reason to think it doesn't apply to intentionals...

Rule 10 Penalty Summary

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, half of a double foul can be intentional. The ruling on that is no FTs at all. The definition of double fouls doesn't preclude one of them being of a different severity than the other ... just two "personal" fouls against each other. Then, the penalties go on to say that there are not FTs for double personal fouls. The rule only explicitly talks about flagrant fouls in this context but that is as a note to explain the rule and there is no reason to think it doesn't apply to intentionals ... Rule 10 Penalty Summary: 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.

Agree. Nice citation Camron Rust. Incomplete, but still covered by purpose and intent.

I guess it depends on the "mood" of the official and how many split seconds pass between the first two fouls. Also, the timing of the whistle (stopping action) may be a big factor.

I see real game possibilities in both options.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A) Call the first two fouls a double live ball foul (no free throws, even though one is intentional) ... Just two free throws for the technical foul (third foul).

B) Three separate fouls. Personal foul (possible bonus free throws). Intentional dead ball technical foul (anybody shoots free throws). Another intentional dead ball technical foul (anybody shoots free throws).

Nice thread. Camron Rust, bob jenkins, and Mannix, thanks for playing.

[Nevadaref]

I consider the level of contact and the ensuing penalty consequences when ruling on these multiple contact situations.

Sequence 1: B2 lands on A2 while going for a loose ball, A2 elbows B2, B2 shoves A2.
My opinion is that an elbow is a significant foul which needs to receive a strong punishment. Therefore, grouping the second foul with the first and creating a double personal foul, despite one of the fouls qualifying as intentional, would warrant no FTs for these two fouls, which I feel is inequitable. Hence, pairing the second foul with the third and creating a double technical foul, which offsets and awards no FTs is clearly more equitable. Shoot any bonus FTs from the first foul or award the ball out of bounds to Team A and continue the game.

Sequence 2: B2 lands on A2, A2 shoves B2, B2 elbows A2.
Here it makes more sense to pairing the first two fouls as part of a double personal foul, which offset, and then charge an intentional technical foul for the third one. Award FTs and possession to Team A.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I consider the level of contact and the ensuing penalty consequences when ruling on these multiple contact situations.

Sequence 1: B2 lands on A2 while going for a loose ball, A2 elbows B2, B2 shoves A2.
My opinion is that an elbow is a significant foul which needs to receive a strong punishment. Therefore, grouping the second foul with the first and creating a double personal foul, despite one of the fouls qualifying as intentional, would warrant no FTs for these two fouls, which I feel is inequitable. Hence, pairing the second foul with the third and creating a double technical foul, which offsets and awards no FTs is clearly more equitable. Shoot any bonus FTs from the first foul or award the ball out of bounds to Team A and continue the game.

Sequence 2: B2 lands on A2, A2 shoves B2, B2 elbows A2.
Here it makes more sense to pairing the first two fouls as part of a double personal foul, which offset, and then charge an intentional technical foul for the third one. Award FTs and possession to Team A.

That is a reasonable approach.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I consider the level of contact and the ensuing penalty consequences when ruling on these multiple contact situations ... My opinion is that an elbow is a significant foul ...

Agree. Shouldn't be ignored as just "incidental contact", dead ball, or live ball.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe we're talking about a retaliatory (not flagrant), knee-jerk reaction, intentional (generic), pre-meditated elbow a split second after the pile on (all before the whistle)?

[Altor]

My question is why is Team B inbounding the ball after any free throws when B2 committed the last foul?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Altor

My question is why is Team B inbounding the ball after any free throws when B2 committed the last foul?

Another IAABO head scratcher.