Re: false double foul?
 

What rulebook are you reading? There's no definition in any rule book that I know of stating that the dead ball makes it an intentional foul. The second foul doesn't have to be any specified or particular kind, and it doesn't have to occur during a dead ball either. The second foul can be any type of personal or technical foul, and that foul just has to occur sometime <b>before</b> the clock starts after the first foul was called to make it part of a "false double" foul. AAMF, the first foul doesn't have to be a certain type either. It could be personal or technical too, and could also be any of the different types of personal and technical fouls also.

Well, I do believe that I am reading the NFHS rulebook for the 2004-05 season. Rule 10.3.8 states, " Intentionally or flarantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul,". I dont know about your definition, whatever rulebook you have not been reading, but throwing an elbow when the ball is dead in retaliation, is in no way considered a personal foul. That is at the least, intentional if not flagrant.

Re: false double foul?
 

Lemme try again:

(1) No, they do not have to be <b>common</b> fouls on both teams. Neither one of the fouls has to be a common foul. They can be <b>any</b> combination of any type of foul by either team--i.e. common foul, intentional personal foul, flagrant personal foul, player control foul, technical foul, intentional technical foul, flagrant technical foul or a team technical foul.

(2) No, by definition a dead ball does <b>not</b> automatically make it an intentional foul. A dead ball foul could be a technical foul, an intentional technical foul, a flagrant technical foul or a team technical foul. Intentional fouls can be either personal or technical in nature.

The point is that it doesn't matter what <b>kind</b> of foul is called- or whether it is the first or second foul foul called. All that matters is that the fouls are called in the order outlined in the definition of a false double foul. One foul of any kind is called. Then, before the clock starts again, another foul of any kind is called. You penalize each foul in the the order that they occur. That's a false double foul.

Yes, it's intentional, or flagrant. But, It's an intetnional (or flagrant) TECHNICAL, not an intentional or flagrant PERSONAL foul (conact while the ball is dead is ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant (or ariborne shooter), in which case it's a technical foul).

Since it's a technical foul, any eligible team B member can shoot the throws.

If the contact had been while the ball was live, it would be a personl foul (whether common, intentional or flagrant). In that instance, B1 would have to shoot the throws.

Chuck, I believe I ended my post with the words "NCAA men".

You should assume by "NCAA men" I mean my interpretation applies to NCAA men's rules. Not NCAA women's rules.

I know that. I was offering it more as a "point of information" than as a correction. Since Mark was addressing men's and women's rules, and you only addressed men's rules, I just thought I would make it clear that the application was different on the women's side. Didn't seem like such a dumb idea at the time. . .

Re: Re: false double foul?
 

Point of information. In NCAA men's rules, dead ball contact is an intentional technical. It is, of course, still possible to have a direct technical for unsporting conduct (which would not be an intentional technical) during a dead ball.

No no, it wasn't a dumb idea, it was a great idea! (Don't want to upset any of the folks who wander by here humming "Give Peace a Chance".)

Re: Re: Re: false double foul?
 

Point of information. Under NCAA men's rules, dead ball <i>contact</i> can also be called a <b>flagrant</b> technical foul too. True? That was my point. There are other options other than always having an intentional technical foul.