False Multiple Foul

[SMEngmann]

Boys JH rec ball, I was working the game alone and it was the 3rd quarter of a game still somewhat in doubt. Airborne A1 drives and is fouled in the act of shooting by B1 and then is blocked by B2 before returning to the floor. I immediately recognized this as the case play for a false multiple foul, but given the situation, I simply called the common foul on B1. Was this a good exercize of judgement in this game, or a cop out?

[ChuckElias]

Unless B2 leveled A1, I would vote for good judgment. I have never called a false multiple foul in the situation you describe. That's not bragging, I just don't think I've ever seen it.

[SMEngmann]

It was a bit tough, and I don't like making complicated calls, but B2 contacted A1, causing both to go to the floor. I clearly saw two fouls, but the question, particularly working alone, of making the call and then enforcing the penalty of 4 shots, two for each foul in the context of a JH game made me decide to go with just the common foul, and nobody complained. I guess from a game management standpoint, with no complaints, I used good judgement, but then I keep asking myself, why is that rule there and that case play there if it's never gonna be enforced? Personally, I don't think the penalty is fair and it strongly discourages making the call.

[Nu1]

Maybe the false multiple foul would be more likely of a call in this situation...(at least I think this is a false multiple, please correct me if I'm wrong)

A1 driving the lane to score goes airborne...B1 is set up to take a charge...B2 fouls A1 in the act of shooting...then A1 comes down and runs into/over B1. (I should also say that B2 fouled A1 from the side. It didn't appear that B2's action could have caused the contact between A1 and B1.)

This happened in a Boys Varsity. My son was A1. The call made was foul on B2...two shots for A1. No call on the contact between A1 and B1.

Couldn't the call also have been...foul on B2...A1 gets two shots with the laned cleared...foul on A1...ball goes back to Team B for a throw in after A1's foul shots???

If this is an example of a false multiple foul, has anyone ever called it this way?

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Nu1

A1 driving the lane to score goes airborne...B1 is set up to take a charge...B2 fouls A1 in the act of shooting...then A1 comes down and runs into/over B1. (I should also say that B2 fouled A1 from the side. It didn't appear that B2's action could have caused the contact between A1 and B1.)

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.

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
Boys JH rec ball, I was working the game alone and it was the 3rd quarter of a game still somewhat in doubt. Airborne A1 drives and is fouled in the act of shooting by B1 and then is blocked by B2 before returning to the floor. I immediately recognized this as the case play for a false multiple foul, but given the situation, I simply called the common foul on B1. Was this a good exercize of judgement in this game, or a cop out?

This isn't a false multiple foul. It's a multiple foul.

The play isn't dead until A1 returns to the floor. Since the block foul occurs before he returns to the floor, it's a multiple foul. If the contact occurs after he retruns to the floor, then it's nothing unless the contact is intentional or flagrant, because the airborne shooter has returned to the floor.

[BktBallRef]

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.

Opps, Lotto, just saw your reply. But hey, I answered your question anyway!

[rainmaker]

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.

It's not a false double because both fouls were committed by B players against a single A player. Not A against B against A.

[Nu1]

Originally posted by rainmaker

It's not a false double because both fouls were committed by B players against a single A player. Not A against B against A.

Rainmaker...I may not have been too clear on my new situation, but judging from the responses, I think my situation (The "A1 driving the lane..." scenario above)would be a false double foul.
In seeing the play I described, the first foul is B2 against A1 and the second foul is A1 against B1 (offensive).

This seems like a possible scenario in many games with people driving the lane and some defenders going for blocked shots while others may be setting up for the charge call. Although, I have never seen it called.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

This isn't a false multiple foul. It's a multiple foul.

The play isn't dead until A1 returns to the floor. Since the block foul occurs before he returns to the floor, it's a multiple foul. If the contact occurs after he retruns to the floor, then it's nothing unless the contact is intentional or flagrant, because the airborne shooter has returned to the floor.

SMEngmann's right on this one, BBR. It is exactly the case book play for a false multiple foul. 4.19.11

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Nu1

Rainmaker...I may not have been too clear on my new situation, but judging from the responses, I think my situation (The "A1 driving the lane..." scenario above)would be a false double foul.
In seeing the play I described, the first foul is B2 against A1 and the second foul is A1 against B1 (offensive).

This seems like a possible scenario in many games with people driving the lane and some defenders going for blocked shots while others may be setting up for the charge call. Although, I have never seen it called.

Nu1, I believe you're right about the false double in your scenario. Check out case play 4.19.6 A. It does not say whether it's a false double but the penalty looks like the penalty for a false double.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
SMEngmann's right on this one, BBR. It is exactly the case book play for a false multiple foul. 4.19.11

I'm famiiar with the case play but I don't completely agree with it. The fouls are at approximately the same time. To me it fits the definition of a multiple foul. A multiple foul does not require that the fouls occur simulataneously.

A better example of a false multiple foul:

A1 hits a shot and is fouled by B1. On the FT, B2 fouls A2. That's a false multiple foul.

We're probably splitting hairs unnecessarily, since this should probably never be called.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Oct 18th, 2004 at 11:17 PM]

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
It was a bit tough, and I don't like making complicated calls, but B2 contacted A1, causing both to go to the floor. I clearly saw two fouls, but the question, particularly working alone, of making the call and then enforcing the penalty of 4 shots, two for each foul in the context of a JH game made me decide to go with just the common foul, and nobody complained. I guess from a game management standpoint, with no complaints, I used good judgement, but then I keep asking myself, why is that rule there and that case play there if it's never gonna be enforced? Personally, I don't think the penalty is fair and it strongly discourages making the call.

You don't think 4 shots is fair, but you essentially let B2 knock A1 down wihout penalty. Is this fair?

If the contact is substantial, it has to be penalized.

[SMEngmann]

Originally posted by Jimgolf


You don't think 4 shots is fair, but you essentially let B2 knock A1 down wihout penalty. Is this fair?

If the contact is substantial, it has to be penalized. [/B]

I see the logic in what you say, but I agree with BBRef that this seems more like a multiple foul than a false multiple foul, and should be penalized accordingly. Even though the case book describes it as a false multiple, it simply doesn't make sense to call it as such. I think that if the contact is severe enough, a multiple foul could be called here, although it would rarely be the case, that way, B2 gets punished for knocking down A1 by picking up a foul, but A doesn't get the unfair advantage of 2 extra free throws. My problem with this, and my actions during the game when I knew I saw a false multiple foul was that I made the judgement to call just the common foul, as 99% of officials would have in the same situation. 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?