Here is a situation that I had in aa AAU game last night.....I have never, in 15 years, had a mess as bad as this one, but I believe we had a "false multiple foul". (I have also managed to avoid any situation that would include the word "false"!!)I'm trying to figure out if we administered it correctly.

B2 intentionally fouls A2 while setting a screen. R makes the call.
B2 walks away, and, as he does so, mouths off to A3. R calls an unsportsman-like "T".
A2 then runs across the court and shoves B2 in the back. U calls a flagrant "T".
A6 then comes onto the court from the bench to add a little spice. R calls this "T". (since there was no fight, this was not deemed "flagrant")

Here is how we broke down the administration:

1) None of these fouls were simultaneous, and all of the "T's" were during the same dead ball period, hence the "false multiple foul" identity. (excluding the first intentional foul);
2) Because of this, we assessed each foul with it's own penalty in order of occurance (2 shots for the intentional then 2 shots for each of the 3 technicals);
3) Put the ball back in play via alternating possession.

Does this sound correct to you??

I have no idea whether it IS correct, but it sounds great! Although I think the ball goes to whichever team shot the last free throws.

How did it sell?

I honestly don't know what you'd call this. False multiple foul hardly does it justice. :D

Jmo, but I'd call B2's T and A2's flagrant T a double technical foul. I'd also give A6 a flagrant T for coming onto the court during this altercation. Jmo, but it's close enough to a fight, and I think that you want to discourage anybody coming off the bench. That's how major brawls get started. Therefore administration is:
- 2 FT's for A2's replacement for the original intentional foul on A2 by B2.
- A T on B2 accompanied by the flagrant T by A2. Same incident. A2 is ejected for the flagrant T. No FT's for the double technical foul.
- Team B gets 2 FT's for the flagrant T on A6 coming off the bench. A6 is ejected. The A head coach is charged with an indirect T and seat-belted for not having control of his bench. After the last FT, team B gets the ball at center for A6's T. Arrow doesn't change.
- Both teams get charged with 2 fouls each toward the bonus.
Sounds like you did a good job in a tough situation.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 30th, 2004 at 03:34 PM]

I agree with JR...on all counts, especially that part about doing a good job with a tough situation....I did have a similar one that didn't get as flagrant this weekend. Mens league tournament. A1 recieves the ball in the corner and is trapped by B1. B1 fouls A1. Right away A2 and B1 begin to have words... I have a foul on B1 then immediately T up A2 and B1. So what we did was shoot the 1 and 1 with the lane cleared, then went to the arrow and put the ball in at mid court.

I like the false multiple.

I could see a double technical for B2 and A2, but it would have to be a false double technical, as A2 fouled B2, but B2 "fouled" A3. I see this situation (perhaps incorrectly) as having time between the incidents and would stick with the false multiple. Of course, either way gives the same number of FTs.

Sounds like you handled it well. In a confusing situation like this, as long as you're consistent, you're all right. What's 2 free throws between friends as long as half of the bench isn't ejected?

Well, that's a tough one.

There were two or more fouls by the same team and also fouls by both teams. Each occured one after the other...not approximately the same time. There was one occurance of players fouling each other but at different times. Even the intention was at the same time/same dead ball since it actually was the beginning of the dead ball.

So, it is both a false double foul and a false multiple foul.

Penalty, one at a time in the order of occurance.

A2's sub shoots 2 for B2's intentional foul.
Any A plyaer shoots 2 for B2's T.
Any B player shoots 2 for A2's T.
Any B player shoots 2 for A6's T.
B gets the ball as part of the last foul penalty.

So, regardless of what you call it all, you enforced it nearly right...all except for the possession at the end.

For NFHS rules I agree with Camron. JR, you can't cancel the FTs for the first two Ts because it was not two opponents committing fouls against each other, therefore it is a false double technical as Mark Dexter correctly pointed out. So you have to shoot them all. I do agree with you that A6's T is flagrant and he is disqualified.

Whew! What a situation. Don't think of it as an ugly mess, but an intellectually challenging mess!

Intelligently challenging...That's good.

I failed to mention that team A was up 20 points with 3 minutes left in the game. The crazy thing was that it was a very smooth game until all of this........

The possession was the one area that was did not feel certain about.

Input appreciated!!!

JR, you can't cancel the FTs for the first two Ts because it was not two opponents committing fouls against each other, therefore it is a false double technical as Mark Dexter correctly pointed out.

[/B][/QUOTE]Upon further review........

I think that I gotta agree with you that it can't be a double technical foul. Doesn't meet the criteria in R4-19-7(b), as you stated. Shoot the T's in the order that they occurred, which is what the guys did in the first place.

Let me rephrase that now you mention that it was a blowout in the making. Not intellectually challenging, but intellectually mindboggling!

I bet I could not have done as pro as Mlancaster did if I run into this mess. At least, I have to go to the table & write down everything, then decide what to do.Question: can't we cancel some FT with the last FT team gets the ball in mid court.

If the fouls happend at the same time, you could cancel some of them, but in the play presentedd, these were 4 separate incidents.

If the fouls happend at the same time, you could cancel some of them, but in the play presentedd, these were 4 separate incidents.

[/B][/QUOTE]Bob, what's your take on A6 coming of the bench? Can a flagrant T be called on this play? I thought I read something a few years ago that stated that it didn't necessarily have to be a "fight" per se, but a confrontation. Thoughts?

Here is what I would do, right or wrong:

1. Substitute for A2 gets 2 shots for the intentional foul by B2 (since A2 was ejected.)
2. Any A player shots 2 for the T on B2.
3. Any B player shots 2 for the flagrant T on A2.
4. Any B player shoots 2 for the flagrant T on A6 (who is ejected per 10-5 "Leave the confines of the bench during a fight OR when a fight MAY break out."
5. Indirect T on coach A for A6's actions & he loses his box.
6. Team B gets ball @ haflcourt.

Indy, I think we came to pretty much the same conclusion two years ago! LOL

The part about "or when a fight may break out" is a fairly recent rule change and probably didn't apply when the sitch was first posted.

Exactly right, Chuck.

Indy,
I have no idea why you found this old thread at this particular time, but it is a good example of how and why the NFHS rules change.
The original post is from the end of March 2004. Since the new rule changes aren't made until the April Rules Committee meeting, the 2003-04 NFHS Rules Book was the most current at the time.
In that book 10-4-5 (which is the rule you meant to cite) said, "...Leave the confines of the bench during a fight."
Now it is entirely possible that someone on the committee saw this discussion or had someone pass it to him/her because less than a month later this rule was amended. The phrase "or when a fight may break out" was added as a change for the 2004-05 Rules Book and that is still the current language.

Obviously, if this situation were to occur today, it would be clear that the bench offender needs to be DQ'd. However, back then it was not. The referee had to make a judgment call using the definitions of a flagrant foul and an unsporting foul.
So I'd like to think that we forum members are responsible for helping clean up a gap in the rules, but I can't say for sure.

NFHS POE I think two years ago, any player coming off the bench onto the court in any altercation is automatic ejection. Unless motioned on the court by an official, which this is not the case.

Fwiw, that wasn't a POE. POE's are issued by the FED to tell us how to call <b>existing</b> rules. As Nevada said, that was a <b>new</b> rule in 2004-05.

The original question of mine that you responded to above was naturally not relevant <b>after</b> the rule change. I asked that question <b>before</b> the rule change.

Hey, I said it first. :mad:

I stand to be corrected, it is a new rule wasn't sure when it came into play, Although our Interpretor from VHSL, emphasized it at our rules clinic, due to many altercations in VA. The prior year.