The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 08:57am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
MTD,
That was an excellent and informative post. I also believe that the situation qualifies as a false double foul according to the definition of such. 4-19-8 I think it was strange that the penalty was changed two seasons ago. I don't even recall the change being announced. All I remember the committe stating is that a new definition for simultaneous fouls was added. I must say, though, that since this new definition was added this play must now be called a simultaneous foul and not a false double foul.

Nevada, MTD Sr is referencing language that has not been relevant or pertinent to simultaneous personal fouls since the case book play he referenced got dropped. Whenever that was. The problem was that when they deleted the case book play, there then was NO penalty defined in the rulebook for simultaneous personal fouls, only simultaneous technical fouls. We had a lengthy thread way back then arguing what the penalty for a simultaneous personal foul should be, as it was NOT covered in the rule book. A bunch of us argued that the penalty for a simultaneous personal foul should be exactly the same as the book penalty for a simultaneous technical foul. MTD Sr. took the opposite tack, and tried to tell us that you had to penalize it differently- i.e. as a false double foul. I think somebody must have been reading our arguments, because the next year(2002-03), the FED added language to define what the penalty should be. Lo and behold, the FED said that you penalize a simultaneous personal foul EXACTLY the same way as you penalize a simultaneous technical foul, NOT the same way as a false double foul. That ticked MTD Sr. off completely, and he's still trying to justify his wrong guess. Why, I don't know- because nobody cares anymore except him. We were all guessing way back when that thread occured, because there was no penalty listed. Our guess turned out to be what the FED thought the appropriate ruling should actually be. Apparently, that still seems to be bugging Mark. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. Nobody calls simultaneous personal fouls anyway(except maybe Mark)!

From the "Comments on the 2002-03 Revisions" from the 2002-03 Case Book- "Definition Of A Simultaneous Personal Foul Added(4-19-9): The definition of a simultaneous personal foul was added to the existing definition of a simultaneous technical foul. Simultaneous personal fouls were referenced in Rule 6-3-3g and in the NFHS Handbook, but were not defined in Rule 4. This addition proves consistency in rule terminology and penalty administration".
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1