Simultaneous Foul

[rainmaker]

I had a chance to call a simultaneous foul last week, and didn't do it. I wish I had, because I think it would have come out more fair.

I was lead, Green was ahead by about 15 or 20, we were into the fourth quarter somewhere. White fouled on a shot, I called it, and noticed P also whistling. We came together, realized that we had two different fouls, one on White (mine), the other on Green. We'd been watching this particular Green player (44), because she was really over-playing and we wanted to catch her again. But P thought that probably my foul came first. I felt pretty certain they'd been at the same time, because the whistles had been so close together, and I knew how Green 44 was timing her shoves relative to the shot.

But I was remembering the mantra we use around here, "NEVER CALL A SIMULTANEOUS FOUL" and I wasn't sure what the administration was, so I capitulated and we gave Green two shots and skipped the other one. I do know, however, that the arrow would have gone to Green.

Now I wish I'd called it simultaneous. It would have given Green 44 a warning, and taken away the shots for Green, which would have given a little gain out of the whole thing to White. Green would still have gotten the ball, though, off the arrow.

My motto this week is, "Oh, well, live and learn." I've got the words in place, now I just have to DO it!

[Hawks Coach]

A blow-out game.

A maybe simultaneous foul, a maybe close but not quite simultaneous foul.

You opt for the latter. It is a normal call. Peace and harmony reign in the universe. Nobody lost a championship over this decision.

You are beating yourself up over this?!?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
A blow-out game.

A maybe simultaneous foul, a maybe close but not quite simultaneous foul.

You opt for the latter. It is a normal call. Peace and harmony reign in the universe. Nobody lost a championship over this decision.

You are beating yourself up over this?!?

Absolutely NOT beating myself up over this. Just cogitating the nature of the Absolute. Is it really the absolute rule to NEVER call a simultaneous foul? In this case, it would have come out much more equitable. Two fouls, one by each team, each team pays a little, each kid gets one more toward the total, neither coach understands, but they see that the other guy lost a little, so it's more or less okay. I'm definitely not saying I intend to start calling more of these. Just wondering about that particular one.

It's just a rumination.

[Hawks Coach]

juulie
I guess I'll buy that, but I am not convinced that you needed to call the simultaneous. If G44 didn't pick up on the fact that she almost got nabbed, she'll do it again on a shot where W isn't fouled. If not, oh well. Lots of stuff happens in the paint, not all of it gets called. Call what you need to, and I don't think you needed to call this - but then again, I wasn't there.

Just curious - if you already knew she was doing this, why hadn't the whistle already blown for it? Wasn't that a bigger issue than this particular no-call?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I had a chance to call a simultaneous foul last week, and didn't do it. I wish I had, because I think it would have come out more fair.

I was lead, Green was ahead by about 15 or 20, we were into the fourth quarter somewhere. White fouled on a shot, I called it, and noticed P also whistling. We came together, realized that we had two different fouls, one on White (mine), the other on Green. We'd been watching this particular Green player (44), because she was really over-playing and we wanted to catch her again. But P thought that probably my foul came first. I felt pretty certain they'd been at the same time, because the whistles had been so close together, and I knew how Green 44 was timing her shoves relative to the shot.

But I was remembering the mantra we use around here, "NEVER CALL A SIMULTANEOUS FOUL" and I wasn't sure what the administration was, so I capitulated and we gave Green two shots and skipped the other one. I do know, however, that the arrow would have gone to Green.

Now I wish I'd called it simultaneous. It would have given Green 44 a warning, and taken away the shots for Green, which would have given a little gain out of the whole thing to White. Green would still have gotten the ball, though, off the arrow.

My motto this week is, "Oh, well, live and learn." I've got the words in place, now I just have to DO it!

Your partner had one on your problem player, I take it? You said almost at the same time about your whistles, who's whistle was first? No, I'm not trying to start an Abbott and Costello bit.

As described your problem player is on the team up by a lot, but the "mantra"...one I don't agree with since you are talking about a situation where at least one of the fouls is off ball, which is always a good thing...has you penalizing the losing team.

For me in that situation you either need to get both, or unless it was REALLY obvious your's came first, just get the foul on 44 green.

It's too bad that the ball is not dead on a defensive foul on a shot, then you could have whacked your problem player for a dead ball contact foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Just curious - if you already knew she was doing this, why hadn't the whistle already blown for it? Wasn't that a bigger issue than this particular no-call?

Oh, we'd gotten her, alright, and she wasn't reforming. I think blindzebra is right that we could have gone with the 44 foul being before the release of the ball -- it very well could have been. Would that be better than a simultaneous, HC? Even if you are the Green coach?

[Hawks Coach]

Regardless of what coach I am, I think that you need to try to call what you think happened first. I sort of had thoughts like BZ's, but then thought that it doesn't matter that you are getting tired of G44's play. Call what happened, not what you would like to call.

My bet would be that the shot gets released before the push, unless this player is really good. Most times, that's the way it goes. So your call is what I would go with, regardless of which bench I am on.

[BktBallRef]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling simultaneous fouls. Perhaps you're confusing the "mantra" of not calling multiple fouls.

It's entirely possible to have simultaneous fouls. Nothing wrong with calling both fouls. In fact, why penalizing one team by callin a foul on them but ignoring the other team's foul? Also, when the whistles blew is not an issue. It's when the foul occurred. If you can't determine if one foul occurred before the other, call'em both.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling simultaneous fouls. Perhaps you're confusing the "mantra" of not calling multiple fouls.

Maybe. Perhaps I heard "don't call it a simultaneous foul", and then it got mutated in my mind. Thanks for keeping me straight.

Now what happened to a post that had a link that didn't work, and then the post disappeared? It was supposed to connect to something that had an "fay" and an "nc" in it. It seems to me it had to do with a new officer of some sort...??

[Camron Rust]

If your parnter whistle first, the ball remained live since it was on a shot. Your foul, even if after, was still during a live ball and would have been a false double foul.

If both of them are not trivial, call them both.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Now what happened to a post that had a link that didn't work, and then the post disappeared? It was supposed to connect to something that had an "fay" and an "nc" in it. It seems to me it had to do with a new officer of some sort...??

Don't know what happened to it.
One of my fans probably erased it.
Probably not anything important.

[Nevadaref]

I'm with Camron. The best way to do this is to call a false double foul. You call the foul committed against the shooter. Since this foul does not make the ball dead, your partner's off-ball push is just a normal personal foul and should be called (especially if you believe that this player is being a problem and/or repeatedly doing this). Now you would give the shooter the proper number of FTs and then award the ball OOB along the end line to the opponents, with the running priviledge depending upon the result of the final FT.

I also believe that, in this situation (specifically, one foul against a shooter), this would be "more fair" than the penalty for a simultaneous foul, which is no FTs (even though one player attempted a shot) and go the the AP.

And I, too, believe that you were confused by the "never call a multiple" advice.