Testing purposes. :D

Apply advantage/disadvantage. Was the shooter placed at an even greater disadvantage because he was fouled a second time? Did he miss the shot even worse because he was fouled twice? Is that an issue? I don't think so.

Don't be a plumber.

B1's foul is a personal foul, not a common foul since it was committed against a player trying for goal. 4-19-2

Nu1,
Lotto is right. It is a false double foul. Penalize both in the order of occurrence. If the try is successful, it does not count.
I had this exact play happen in a game this summer. My partner was lead and actually called both fouls. I thought it was proper and a great call. I posted a thread on this forum entitled, "Great Call, Partner" or something close to that. Unfortunately, I can't find it now. Perhaps someone else can locate it.

It is a close one, but I believe that the reasoning behind this being a FALSE multiple and not just a multiple is that the whistle for the first foul stops the clock and the blocking foul then comes afterwards (during the period of time when the ball is still live, but the clock is stopped). One foul clearly preceeds the other. It is likely that a second whistle could even be blown for the second foul. Perhaps by a second official.
Note that if the first foul were not committed against a shooter the ball would be dead and the second foul would be ignored unless deemed intentional or flagrant.

A true multiple would be two players swinging to block the shot and both hitting the shooter. There is only one whistle and it is not possible to say that one foul occurred clearly after the clock was stopped. Maybe not even which foul occurred first.

Does seem like splitting hairs, but I believe that is the explanation you are looking for.

It's like the enormous sign hanging in the grocery store I used to work at telling the check cashing policy. It was there for when you needed it. 99% of the time, it was completely ignored. 99% of the time, the game is best served by ignoring the multiple foul. But that 1% (or 0.1% or 0.01%) of the time when you need the rule, it's there.

??? Work with my pants riding low?

I believe the definition for multiple says "approximately" the same time. They can be slightly one after the other. This could be a multiple if two players foul the same shooter.

Exactly. That's the point I made as well. The definition of a multiple foul does not require simultaneous fouls.

__________________________________________________ _____

BITS

Don't be a plumber = Don't go looking for $hit.

You're right obviously, I just got my mis-spoke.

Tony,
I understood your point and don't disagree with it. It is certainly possible to see it as a multiple foul. I was merely trying to explain why Case Book play 4.19.11 calls this a FALSE multiple foul. That is a fact that neither of us can dispute.
PS I like your plumber quip.

Ewwwwww What a visual :(

Huh?
 

Nevada, I wasn\'t commenting on anything you wrote. In fact, I didn\'t even read your post. I was simply commenting that Camron made the exact same observation that I made.

All righty, then!
Hey, how about sending me a copy of the electronic version of the Rules/Case book that you have? Please.
[email protected]