Do you call a 2nd foul?
 

A1 drives to the basket. A1 grabs the ball with 2 hands (controls the ball).
A1 takes a step. B1 reaches and fouls A1 across the arms. The C official blows the whistle. B2 has obtained Legal Guarding Position on A1. A1 continues the drive to the basket. A1 goes airborne.
1) A1 releases the ball for a try, then creates torso/torso contact on B2. Both A1 & B2 go to the ground. The ball goes in the basket
2) A1 creates torso/torso contact on B2 then releases the ball for a try. Both A1 & B2 go to the ground. The ball goes in the basket
Should the Lead official blow the whistle and call a PC foul on A1? If so what is the ruling procedure?

"continues to drive"? what does that mean? if thats more than another step, we're ignoring the second foul unless a1 punches b1 or something similar.even if the A1 doesnt take another step, most likely ignoring the second foul unless its egregious.

False Double Foul ???
 

Nice question Zoochy.

False double foul?

Wave off the basket and give the shooter two free throws?

Personal fouls on both A1 and B1?

Team fouls for both Team A and Team B?

Probably technical fouls on both Head Coach A and Head Coach B?

Maybe tossing Head Coach A and Head Coach B?

You Spin Me Round (Like A Record) (Dead Or Alive, 1985) ...
 

You have to.

No choice in the situation.

It's a live ball (continuous motion) up to and including the player control foul contact after which the ball then becomes dead.

You can't ignore the second foul!

All live ball contact personal fouls, no dead ball contact intentional or flagrant technical fouls.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PGNiXGX2nLU?si=TLjOXlPOfCR3RJxE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

===
How would you administrate the Free Throws? Line up or don't line up? How do you proceed after the last Free Throw?

If you go the false double route, shoot the FTs with noone alone the lane and award the ensuing throw in to B.

Isn't there a case played that addresses this situation?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

theres an older case play thats not in the book, heres a thread on it

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...uble-foul.html

And I don't think anything has changed in the last 16 years that nullifies or contradicts that ruling.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Players Are Knocked Into Another Player ...
 

Nice job guys.

Great case play thread.

I would be interested in further discussion about "players are knocked into another player".

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

True Confessions
 

I have a true confession to make.

1) I have watched, played, and officiated basketball for 65 years and I have never seen this happen in a game. That is not to say that it has not happened and I suspect it happens more often than we think, I would bet dollars to donuts that it does. That said ...

2) I would not hesitate to enforce this Play per the Case Book, in fact I would recognize as soon as I saw the Play.

MTD, Sr.

ive seen a few times over my 20+ where a defender is setup for a charge but another player comes in and fouls the dribbler and the dribbler bounced into the LGP defender.

Distinct Possibility In A Real Game ...
 

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?

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

Swiss Cheese Please ...
 

We've got some knuckleheads that don't know a false double foul from a ham sandwich.

We call false doubles all the time. Usually a personal foul, followed by a technical foul we just never have to use the term "false double" on the court.

False Multiple ...
 

Good point.

Probably some "false multiples" too.

Based on the play, no. If there clearly was a foul and for some reason players did not recognize the whistle unknowingly, then no, I am not calling a foul. Yes, there is a rule and a case play, but that is also a little different. I would only call a foul if something on purpose and nefarious took place. Otherwise, common sense rules the day here. But based only on the play and what I am thinking, call the first foul. This usually never happens anyway.

Peace

I put it this way. Many feel a false double foul is something that you call, but it is something that happens as a result of a second action. A false double foul is more about how you administer the fouls, not what you called. So you are right, we call these more often than we ever realize, but people get caught up in the name and think they are doing too much as a result.

Peace

👍

MTD, Sr.

I think I would be hard pressed to even come up with a memory of myself uttering the words "false" anything outside an association meeting or class. Only use it on the net in discussion forums/facebook

Administered In The Order In Which They Occur ...
 

When such odd situations occur, and my partner and I have a short tête-à-tête discussion, and if they seem confused, I will occasionally drop the term "false double foul", usually followed by "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they occur".

When discussing with a coach I usually leave out the "false double foul" part.

... And Justice For All (Al Pacino, 1979) ...
 

https://st1.latestly.com/wp-content/.../04/2zd5qi.jpg

Of course, as of last year, this is no longer always the case (faking being fouled).

Too bad, it was always so easy to follow.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1052986

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

Confused because that it not always the case in levels above high school.

I agree that we do not always use the terms. I know I have to illustrate what we are doing to take the stigma out of the term. Many people think we are calling some exotic or unusual thing, but all of us have called a live ball and a dead ball foul. Or in some cases, multiple dead-ball fouls. Or at the very least, seen them called. That is really all those are. So I have said the term to let people know that is what we are doing under rules language, but not something I would make a big deal about.

Peace

I actually saw this exact play happen at a try-out camp for the Northeast Conference. It was a game I was watching (not working), but it was the exact casebook play. I got really excited for a second, but the crew on the court only called the shooting foul. I would have loved to have seen them explain it to the coaches! :D:D

Here Come De Judge (Laugh In, Flip Wilson, Sammy Davis, Jr.) ...
 

Can we change the wording to "penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which they are charged"?

Will that cover all NFHS situations?

This entire idea seems hypocritical. Nobody calls multiple fouls, which occur with far greater frequency, so why call a false double foul?

In a false double scenario, it's almost always a Technical foul as the second foul

I have seen this happen but never considered the second foul or action. The first action IMO usually causes the second action.

But as said, the vast majority of FDFs are a technical foul, not this kind of situation in the original post at all.

Peace

For Every Action (Isaac Newton) ...
 

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

Needs to more than a common personal foul for #2

Garden Variety ...
 

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

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

Separate Act ...
 

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

In my opinion, yes.

In my opinion, yes.

Agree.

In my opinion, yes. Yes. Yes.

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