Do you call a 2nd foul?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The first action ... usually causes the second action.

Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

If the first action caused the second action, you damn right!!!!

Like my mom used to say, "You can be right and dead at the same time." You go right ahead and do that, I will not likely do such a thing. Just like calling a multiple foul. It is in the rulebook, but not a good idea to call.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

Needs to more than a common personal foul for #2

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Needs to more than a common personal foul for #2

So, if it was just a garden variety player control foul, we could ignore it?

A player control foul that we would not have ignored in any other situation?

Call it live ball continuous motion incidental contact, which by rule, is not illegal, and may be severe?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, if it was just a garden variety player control foul, we could ignore it?

A player control foul that we would not have ignored in any other situation?

Call it live ball continuous motion incidental contact, which by rule, is not illegal, and may be severe?

I cannot imagine how someone is fouled, which basically means displacement or being put at a disadvantage by illegal contact. We are going to then say they have so much control after the foul, then call a foul on them? Now, if you can make that make sense, then I would love to hear it. But since this is the only place that suggests that, I have never seen an actual situation or example on video where this applies the way you say it does. Which tells me someone, long time ago, tried to be cute and come up with a situation to penalize two things, but there has never been another location where such action is said to be a foul. Not in the Simplified and Illustrated book or in the yearly guidebooks. So yes, I would think common sense or logic would win out. But if that is what you want to call, be a pioneer, I will not be that in this case. IJS.

Peace

[Raymond]

So Billy, 18 days and 25 responses later, I think this is still holding up pretty well:

"My 20 years on the court, never had a play that was even close enough that I would have to consider such a decision. It's why we should have a patient whistle on plays to the basket.

It would have to be so obvious that the offensive player was committing a foul as a separate act that it would damn near have to be ruled intentional."

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

False double foul? Probably technical fouls on both Head Coach A and Head Coach B? Maybe tossing Head Coach A and Head Coach B?

A false double foul, while possible, would be very controversial.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never observed it but agree that it is a distinct possibility in a real game situation. If the official is 100% certain that the player control foul would not have occurred without an unintentional push as part of the defensive foul on the ball handler, can the player control foul be overlooked after a discussion between the officials?

In my opinion, yes.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I actually saw this exact play happen at a try-out camp for the Northeast Conference.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that it can happen in that manner, but are we allowed to ignore the second action?

In my opinion, yes.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the first action caused the second action, you damn right!!!!

Agree.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, if it was just a garden variety player control foul, we could ignore it? A player control foul that we would not have ignored in any other situation? Call it live ball continuous motion incidental contact, which by rule, is not illegal, and may be severe?

In my opinion, yes. Yes. Yes.

Originally Posted by Raymond

I think this is still holding up pretty well: "My 20 years on the court, never had a play that was even close enough that I would have to consider such a decision. It's why we should have a patient whistle on plays to the basket. It would have to be so obvious that the offensive player was committing a foul as a separate act that it would damn near have to be ruled intentional."

Rule 2-3 (Referee’s Authority): "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules."