The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 11, 2004, 11:01pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,705
While doing the research for my post in the Alternating Possession thread, I found some interesting reading regarding false double fouls and simultaneous fouls.

Two years ago there was a very long thread about how to handle simultaneous fouls.

The play in quesion is as follows:

While the ball is live, A1 fouls B1 and at the same time B2 fouls A2. I stated that this was a false double foul. I stated that if either team was in the bonus, those free throws, and then the AP Arrow would be used to put the ball back into play.


I was taken to task by many, many officials for having the temerity to define this play as a false double foul. While perusing the NFHS 1984-85 Casebook, I found the following play:

6.2.3. PLAY: While A1 is attempting to make a throw-in, A1 fouls B1 and B2 simultaneously fouls A2. Team A is in the bonus but Team B is not. RULING: Since both fouls are simultaneously committed, the ball will be put in play with a center jump between any 2 opponents following the one-and-one free throw attempt by A2. This is a false double foul. (R4-S15-A3)

A supporting rule from the 1984-85 NFHS Rules Book is R6-S2-A3: The ball shall be put in play in the center circle by a jump ball between any 2 opponents following simultaneous personal fouls committed by opponents.


Since the NFHS adopted the AP Arrow starting in the 1985-86 season, the casebook play from the 1984-85 Casebook became:

6.3.3B. PLAY: While A1 is attempting to make a throw-in, A1 fouls B1 and B2 simultaneously fouls A2. Team A is in the bonus but Team B is not. RULING: Since both fouls are simultaneously committed, the ball will be put in play with a throw-in by the team entitled to it under the alternating procedure following the one-and-one free throw attempt by A2. This is a false double foul. (R4-S15-A3)

A supporting rule from the 1985-86 NFHS Rules Book is R6-S3-A3g: In all jump ball situations other than the start of the game and each extra period, the throw-in shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where opponents commit simultaneous personal or technical fouls.


Prior to the 2001-02 season, the NFHS penalty for a false double foul which were simultaneous fouls was that all free throws were to be attempted before the AP Throw-in. Starting with the 2002-03 season the penalty for this type of false double foul was changed so that no free throw attempts would be taken before the AP Throw-in.

My rule basis for defining simultaneous fouls (personal or technical) as a false double foul have not changed even though the free throw portion of the penalty has been removed.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 11, 2004, 11:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,612
Yes, it has, no matter how much BS you post here.

Good night.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 07:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,597
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.

Also the last part of the definition of a false double foul should be removed as it was made pointless by the definition of a simultaneous foul. Particularly I mean the words, "such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent."
Since there are two attributes to a double foul: 1. two opposing players committing fouls against each other, AND 2. the fouls occur at approximately the same time.

  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 08:43am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Yes, it has, no matter how much BS you post here.

Good night.

Your most recent post in this thread is a perfect example of the type of posts that do nothing to further intelligent discussion of the play.

But what I find more disturbing about the play that we discussed two years ago is that there was a casebook play that addressed it directly and it now appears that the NFHS Rules Committee did not research its own archives to see if there was a casebook play that covered the situation before making a rule change.

I admit to laziness in not going through my files two years ago to defend my position. We live in a three bedroom ranch, and I just did not feel like climbing up into the attic to go through my files because I was confident that my rules interpretation was correct (and it was and I just broke my arm patting myself on my back) because in the back of my mind I remembered reading such a casebook play.

The fact remains, that the Rules Committee has always held that position that simultaneous fouls (personal or techncial) are a false double foul, and that the penalty has been changed since the 2002-03 season.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 08:57am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
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".
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 09:03am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]
The fact remains, that the Rules Committee has always held that position that simultaneous fouls (personal or techncial) are a false double foul, and that the penalty has been changed since the 2002-03 season.

[/B][/QUOTE]Uh, no, the fact remains that the NFHS recognized before the 2002-03 season that there was NO penalty listed for a simultaneous personal foul. They corrected that with their rule change that year. Unfortunately, the FED didn't agree with you when they corrected it. Revisionist history, Mark. Good try, though.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 09:30am
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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".

Jurassic Referee:

I NEVER made wrong guess about how to handle simultaneous personal fouls. My interpretation was based on the definitions of a double foul and a false double foul, and casebook plays that already exsisted. My intepretation was correct at the time of the discussion. The casebook play from the middle 1980's was identical to that the thread was discussing.

I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants to further define simultaneous personal and techncial fouls. The addition of these definitions in 2002-03 did not change the fact that they still are false double fouls. The major change was in the the penalties that will be assessed for simultaneous personal and techncial fouls: free throws, that would have been attempted in the past, would not be attempted anymore.

A few years earlier, the Rules Committe defined double techncial fouls. Double technical fouls are by defintion a false double foul. But when the Rules Committee added the definition of double techncial fouls, it changed the penatly in the same way that it changed the penalty for simultaneous personal and technical fouls.

If one goes back and reads the literature of the time concerning the addition of the definition of double techncial fouls and the changing of the penalty, so that no free throws were to be attempted, was because too many officials were not administering the penalty for a particular false double foul correctly. The following play was given most often as an example:

Play: While the ball is live, A1 and B1 gets in each other's face and push each other in an unsportmanlike manner. RULING: The fouls by A1 and B1 are personal fouls, and therefore this is a double foul. No free throws are attempted and the AP Arrow is used to resume play.

There were too many instances where the officials were charging A1 and B1 with techncial fouls and allowing free throws to be attempted before going to the AP Arrow to resume play. I know because I had far too many officials tell me that this is how they had administered this type of play. Officials were forgetting that all contact fouls while the ball is live are personal fouls. Therefore the Rules Committee added the definition of double techncial fouls and stated that like a double foul (double personal foul) no free throws would be attempted.

While I was upset that far too many officials were deficient in their knowledge of the rules, I agree that deleting the free throw requirement from the double techncial foul scenario of a false double foul is a good thing from the point of game management just as it is a good thing from the point of game management for simultaneous personal and techncial fouls.

Two things still get my britches in a knot:

1) Far too many officials still do not understand the defintitions of double foul and false double foul; and

2) More importantly, as I have stated before, I do not believe the Rules Committee does a good job of researching its archives for appropriate casebook plays before issuing a ruling.

But to get back to the primary reason for this particular post and that is: I NEVER guessed about the interpretation of handling the original play because I knew that the Rules Committee had already issued a casebook play, I was just lazy in not looking it up. And with that in mind I think you owe my a public apology for making such a statement.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 09:50am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]
But to get back to the primary reason for this particular post and that is: I NEVER guessed about the interpretation of handling the original play because I knew that the Rules Committee had already issued a casebook play, I was just lazy in not looking it up. And with that in mind I think you owe my a public apology for making such a statement.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mark, I skimmed over your post until I got here, because it was the same old/same old. Have to tell you that I broke out laughing when I read the above, though.

The Rules Committee removed the case book play that you are trying to base your argument on many, many years ago. Since that time, there was NO penalty in the book for a simultaneous personal foul. The NFHS Rules Committee recognized that before the 2002-03 season, and took care of the problem. They referred to that in the cite that I quoted above from the Case Book of that year. That kinda backs up my argument, doesn't it? Now please tell me what rules language in the last 15 years you can cite that will will back up your assertation. All you have posted so far is your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't seem to match the opinion of the NFHS.

Until you post some rules language that will back you up, I think that I'm through arguing this one. Your fanciful statements, without the backing of any written rules that will back them up, do not make for a very compelling argument on your part.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 10:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cheyenne, wyoming
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]
I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants to further define simultaneous personal and techncial fouls. The addition of these definitions in 2002-03 did not change the fact that they still are false double fouls. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes Mark it did change the fact that they are false double fouls, they are now simultaneous fouls. While in your opinion they may meet the definition of False Double Fouls, they are no longer False Double Fouls. They have their own definition now.

[/B][/QUOTE] Officials were forgetting that all contact fouls while the ball is live are personal fouls. [/B][/QUOTE]

During a live ball A1 punches B1 in the mouth. By definition A1 should be charged with fighting, further fighting is a Player Technical 10-3-9, so it isn't quite as absolute as you might try to infer...
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 04:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,612
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Your most recent post in this thread is a perfect example of the type of posts that do nothing to further intelligent discussion of the play.
As is yours.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 09:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
Question Truly a mystery

I am still trying to figure out why a two-year old argument suddenly became relevant, and why someone whose point of view was not upheld by later NFHS clarifications/interpretations saw fit to raise it from its tomb. Guess I should have studied better in school.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2004, 09:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,612
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am still trying to figure out why a two-year old argument suddenly became relevant, and why someone whose point of view was not upheld by later NFHS clarifications/interpretations saw fit to raise it from its tomb. Guess I should have studied better in school.
Coach, this was one of the first things that Mark was proved wrong about on this forum. It still bothers him, to the point that he can't admit he was wrong.

He can't even accept that this was an editorial change, a change in the wording. It was not a rule change, nor did the penalty for this situation change. It's plain stupid to believe that simultaneous technical fouls would result in an AP situation, yet simultaneous personal fouls would result in FTs being shot. There is no substance or logic to his argument whatsoever.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2004, 12:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
During a live ball A1 punches B1 in the mouth. By definition A1 should be charged with fighting, further fighting is a Player Technical 10-3-9, so it isn't quite as absolute as you might try to infer...
10-3-9 isn't about live ball contact. A live ball foul that fits into the definition of fighting would be a flagrant personal foul, or flagrant intentional foul, not a technical.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2004, 02:05am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
During a live ball A1 punches B1 in the mouth. By definition A1 should be charged with fighting, further fighting is a Player Technical 10-3-9, so it isn't quite as absolute as you might try to infer...
10-3-9 isn't about live ball contact. A live ball foul that fits into the definition of fighting would be a flagrant personal foul, or flagrant intentional foul, not a technical.
Juulie, see casebook play 4.18.2. That mentions live ball fouls that are called fighting, and the penalty is flagrant technical fouls. Of course, casebook play 10.4.4SitA also mentions that live ball fouls for fighting can also be called flagrant personal fouls.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2004, 08:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,216
Sometimes studying history can be useful to help us understand the spirti and intent of the rules.

I don't see that here.

I'm closing the thread before more personal comments get made.

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 11:56am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1