False Multiple Foul

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
But why does that case play even exist if we aren't gonna enforce it? What's the point of having a rule on the books that nobody will call?

Testing purposes.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
Airborne A1 drives and is fouled in the act of shooting by B1 ... I simply called the common foul on B1.

....context of a JH game made me decide to go with just the common foul

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Lotto

This would be a false double foul, not a false multiple foul. Double fouls involve fouls by players on opposite teams; multiple fouls involve fouls by players on the same team.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Lotto
For someone who doesn't have the NFHS rule and case books, could you explain why this wouldn't be a true multiple foul? It seems to fit the definition---fouls committed by teammates on the same opponent at approximately the same time.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
But why does that case play even exist if we aren't gonna enforce it? What's the point of having a rule on the books that nobody will call?

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Don't be a plumber.

??? Work with my pants riding low?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
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.

[SMEngmann]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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.

Ewwwwww What a visual

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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]