Technical Foul ???
 

The following appeared in the latest issue of IAABO Inside The Lines under high school rules.

2. As A2 and B2 go after a loose ball, B2 lands on A2 in an attempt to get the ball. A2 then elbows B2 in the chest. The Trail official blows their whistle. B2 then shoves A2. A2 and B2 receive a double personal foul and B2 is called for an intentional foul. Is the official correct?

2. No: (4-19-1) Personal foul on B2; (4-19-3) Intentional foul on A2; (4-19-5) Technical foul on B2; fouls and free throws are assessed in order ending with Team B inbounding at the division line.

Since the initial foul of B2 landing on A2 makes the ball dead, wouldn't the subsequent intentional foul of A2 elbowing B2 in the chest be a technical foul (intentional dead ball contact)?

It makes a difference because it determines who shoots the free throws for this intentional elbow in chest foul (B2 or any Team B member).

NFHS Basketball Rules Fundamental #16: The official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

it would be an intentional technical (as opposed to intentional personal) foul.

Since the OP didn't ask about FTs, it doesn't matter to the question asked.

Broached ...
 

Wouldn't the last two fouls in the trio both be "intentional technical(s)"?

It was broached: "Free throws are assessed in order ...".

No....this is considered approximately the same time as the first foul. If the dead ball was absolutely instant on the the first contact, you could never have a double foul unless a try were in flight.

If the two fouls both occur before the official can get the whistle blown (or even if the 2nd is as the whistle is being blown), consider that to be approximately the same time. Until the whistle is sounded, there is no reason for either player to stop playing. Contact after the whistle becomes technical because there is no reason for the players to contact each other during that time.

Technically, yes, but not really relevant since intentional technical's have no difference in enforcement vs basic technicals.

The intentional element is there largely to judge the contact relative to a live ball situation to determine whether it should be ignored or penalized.

What's It Gonna Be ???
 

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.

Options ...
 

I see two simple options.

A) Call the first two fouls a double live ball foul and forget about the intentional aspect. 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).

Intentional Aspect ...
 

Not a big fan of ignoring the intentional aspect (if intentional was so deemed: A2 then elbows B2 in the chest) and the two free throw penalty.

But if we call it a double foul, that dictates no free throws.

What if the second foul was deemed live ball intentional (intentional as deemed by IAABO)?

Does that automatically preclude us from calling it a live ball double foul?

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)?

Double Foul ...
 

4-19-8: Double fouls: a. A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time. b. A double technical foul is a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

In order for it to be a double foul, both have to be personal or both have to be technical.

Let's assume that both occurred at approximately the same time (both before a whistle), so two personal fouls, a double foul.

But can a double personal foul include one common foul and one intentional foul?

... and if so, do we shoot free throws for the intentional, or not shoot free throws?

Does intentional "trump" double? Or does double "trump" intentional?

Easy Way Out ...
 

This is the easy way out, but is it correct?

I believe you are correct. Remember the passage in Basketball Rules Fundamentals that says "16. The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)."? The foul of B2 landing on A2 causes the ball to become dead by rule 6-7-7. The subsequent foul by A2 with the elbow is thus an intentional technical foul and the foul by B2 shoving A2 is also an intentional technical foul. I believe where IAABO erred is not describing the second and third fouls in the sequence by A2 as both being (intentional) technical fouls. You might even be able to simplify and rule the last two fouls as a double technical foul and avoid free throws for those and just resume at POI. Now that's really an easy way out. Who can argue with simplification? :)

Fight ???
 

Thanks Mannix.

Fight?

4-18-1: Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

Just spit-balling.

Sure, the activity could be considered fighting. It is likely a situation where the crew discusses to determine if an upgrade is warranted based on what was, or was not, observed by each official.:cool:

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

If that were true, it would pretty much be impossible to have a double foul at most points of the game as one almost always happens before the other, even if just slightly.

The rules makers cover this by defining double fouls as "approximately" the same time where the expected result is that the 2nd is considered to still be in a live ball if it happens so close in time.

Citation ...
 

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.

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

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.

Elbow ...
 

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

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

Dumpster Fire ...
 

Another IAABO head scratcher.