strange "double" foul situation

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

When A1 commits a personal foul against B1 at the sametime that B3 commits a personal foul against A3, a false double foul has occured. The fouls are penalized in the order that they occur with the penalty for the last foul determining how the ball will remain or be put into play. In this situation since the fouls happened simultaneously the alternating possession arrow will be used to put the ball into play after all of the penalties have been imposed.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Actually, this is a false double foul. The first foul occurred while the clock was running and the ball was live. The second foul occurred after the clock stopped and before it restarted after the first foul. Since an airborne shooter was fouled before he returned to the floor, the foul does not have to be flagrant or intentional to be called.

Since B isn't in the bonus, there are no Fts at B's end.
A1 shoots one shot with players on the lane, just as if the foul on A4 had not occurred, although it is, of course, still reported.

BTW, JugglingRef, I would have called the foul on A4 too.

I don't see where the clock stopped, but it's been a long year.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick
I don't see where the clock stopped, but it's been a long year.

The clock would stop when the foul is whistled on A4.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
When A1 commits a personal foul against B1 at the sametime that B3 commits a personal foul against A3, a false double foul has occured. The fouls are penalized in the order that they occur with the penalty for the last foul determining how the ball will remain or be put into play. In this situation since the fouls happened simultaneously the alternating possession arrow will be used to put the ball into play after all of the penalties have been imposed.

That's an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure that I agree or disagree with it. But it does have me thinking. Is there a case book play to back it up?

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The clock would stop when the foul is whistled on A4.

I couldn't hear that whistle first. Fans were too loud.

[doghead]

If Team B had been in the bonus, what order should the free throws have occurred?

[mick]

Originally posted by doghead
If Team B had been in the bonus, what order should the free throws have occurred?

Doghead,
Fouls are penalized in order of occurrence.
You may have to discuss that with your partner to get a clear decision on who shoots first.
mick

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by doghead
If Team B had been in the bonus, what order should the free throws have occurred?

Since the foul by A4 occurred first, B4 would shoot 1 & 1 if B was in the bonus. No players along the lane.

Then A1 would should his FT under normal FT conditions.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

That's an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure that I agree or disagree with it. But it does have me thinking. Is there a case book play to back it up?

When I submitted my ruling I did not have a chance to comment further. As I stated before the two fouls are personal fouls, therefore the penalties are to be imposed for each foul. The rule book is not silent on this play. NHFS R6-S3-A3g and NCAA R6-S3-A1f state that the AP arrow is to be used when opponents commit simultaneous personal fouls. The only time that you have to be concerned about the order in which the fouls are to be penalized is when both teams are going to be shooting free throws. Just have the team that has the AP arrow shot its free throws last. Remember, this play involves personal fouls only and we do not care if the one or both of the fouls are common or not.

This type of foul situation is rare but should be handled in your pre-game conference because it is not the type you really you want to have to explain to both coaches.

Here are some good ways to handle this situation. 1) If both fouls are common fouls or the foul against the player with the ball is a foul in the act of shooting, let the foul on the ball be before the foul off the ball, making the foul off of the ball incidental contact because the ball was already dead. 2) If the foul off the ball was intentional or flagrant, let the foul off the ball be before the foul on the ball. You must always penalize an intentional or flagrant foul. Once again you are letting the other foul become incidental contact because the ball was dead. 3) Take play 1) and instead of a foul on the ball let it be a violation by the ball handler, let that violation be first, and handle the contact off of the ball the same way.

I am not advocating not treating the play as a false double foul. The correct way is to treat it as such. But some officials want to stay way from these type of weird situations and a good pregame on can solve problems like this one.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When I submitted my ruling I did not have a chance to comment further. As I stated before the two fouls are personal fouls, therefore the penalties are to be imposed for each foul. The rule book is not silent on this play. NHFS R6-S3-A3g and NCAA R6-S3-A1f state that the AP arrow is to be used when opponents commit simultaneous personal fouls. The only time that you have to be concerned about the order in which the fouls are to be penalized is when both teams are going to be shooting free throws. Just have the team that has the AP arrow shot its free throws last. Remember, this play involves personal fouls only and we do not care if the one or both of the fouls are common or not.

This type of foul situation is rare but should be handled in your pre-game conference because it is not the type you really you want to have to explain to both coaches.

Here are some good ways to handle this situation. 1) If both fouls are common fouls or the foul against the player with the ball is a foul in the act of shooting, let the foul on the ball be before the foul off the ball, making the foul off of the ball incidental contact because the ball was already dead. 2) If the foul off the ball was intentional or flagrant, let the foul off the ball be before the foul on the ball. You must always penalize an intentional or flagrant foul. Once again you are letting the other foul become incidental contact because the ball was dead. 3) Take play 1) and instead of a foul on the ball let it be a violation by the ball handler, let that violation be first, and handle the contact off of the ball the same way.

I am not advocating not treating the play as a false double foul. The correct way is to treat it as such. But some officials want to stay way from these type of weird situations and a good pregame on can solve problems like this one.

Good thoughts, Mark.

[BktBallRef]

After reading 6-3-3g, I think you're on solid ground with going to the arrow. I still don't think it's a FDF. Perhaps a definition is needed in Rule 4 for Simultaneous Fouls, just as there is for Simultaneous Technical Fouls. Simultaneous Fouls sounds like a better definition and is exactly what happened in the original play.

Good post, Mark.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I still don't think it's a FDF.

I think the wording that makes this a False Double Foul is the phrase that says, " or does not have one or more of the above characteristics of a Double Foul."

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I think the wording that makes this a False Double Foul is the phrase that says, " or does not have one or more of the above characteristics of a Double Foul."

Ah, but that's not what it says. It says,

A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

If the rule said OR, I would agree with you. But it says AND, which means all three criteria must be met. I like the sound of simultaneous fouls much better, don't you?

[rainmaker]

A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.

If the rule said OR, I would agree with you. But it says AND, which means all three criteria must be met. I like the sound of simultaneous fouls much better, don't you?

You're right abou the and/or thing, but why aren't all three of the criteria met? They couldn't have really been simultaneous, if you think about it cosmologically, so the FDF fits.

Besides there are no provisions in the rule book for Simultaneous Fouls. It's not dealt with at all so the FDF is the best choice from what's available, isn't it?

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

You're right abou the and/or thing, but why aren't all three of the criteria met? They couldn't have really been simultaneous, if you think about it cosmologically, so the FDF fits.

Besides there are no provisions in the rule book for Simultaneous Fouls. It's not dealt with at all so the FDF is the best choice from what's available, isn't it?

Simultaneous fouls are referenced in 6-3-3g.