Like I said in my first post, who did A1 disrespectfully address?

Was it B1, the official, another player, the bench, etc?

Was A1 reacting to B1's foul, the official based on B1's foul or did they just spontaneously have a bout of tourettes?

If A1 is saying, "Get the F off me or call the Fing foul," as you are calling the foul I can see arguments both for and against this being simultaneous.

As MTD is know to say, very seldom does the whistle cause the ball to become dead.

It is very possible that the foul occurred first and the official and A1 reacted simultaneously.;)

This is all getting kinda silly. There is no reason to let A1 get a 'free shot' in what amounts to a twice in a lifetime play because of some vagueness in the rules.

If A1 screams "Call the f'ing foul!" as I pass on some contact then for sure there's only going to be 1 foul, and I doubt it's going against B1.

If A1 screams "Get the f off of me!" as B1 fouls then I'm taking A1's T as a separate action and we're throwing as many FT's as needed for B1's & A1's fouls, then either go POI (ncaa) or B's ball (fed).

In reading the original sitch over and over again, I'm not sure why we aren't considering that this might be a false double foul? Doesn't it fall under that part of the definition that says, "at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent." If A1 was distrespectfully addressing B1, and they happen at the same time, why is this simultaneous instead of double? If one is personal and one is technical, isn't this "one of the attributes of a double foul" being absent?

Good grief.

Let's forget the IF'S and establish a scenario!

B1 fouls A1. This results in a personal foul.

A1 curses the official. This results in a technical foul.

The fouls occur at the EXACT SAME TIME.

How are the fouls penalized under 2005-2006 NFHS rules?

I'm still going with original consensus, anyone think it's right or wrong?

That specific play is not covered. It's not a double personal foul. It's not a double technical foul. It semi fits a simultaneous foul, but even that one is pushing it.

If you choose to judge it as one of those three it's no FTs and team A's ball at POI.

Okay. But before we beat that one to death, let's establish a different scenario (call it situation D), in which B1 fouls A1, resulting in a pf, and A1 curses B1 resulting in a T. Would that be a false double foul?

tomegun, thanks for the update on AAR's resume. Regardless of what games he's worked, his question still confused 1/2 of the responders. I was trying to get a clarification so I asked a question and responded that IF it happened the way I responded then this is how you handle. If you want the post to go in a different direction then EXCUSE ME!

As I already said no free shots.

Fed rules - A1 shoots his 2, any B shoots 2 & ball to B at midcourt.

It's not really that hard.

Yep, I think it's wrong.

No FTs, POI.

Until the NFHS clarifies it, these are simultaneous fouls.

Yes, it would be a FDF.

You responded before anyone and changed what he said which was: "Of course we talked about order of occurrence, the fact that they happened simultaneously and being hopeful that I would've reported and administered that they happened at different times(for confusion's sake). However, they actually happened simultaneously.

So if I would have come up with a common foul and a technical foul and had the misfortune of acknowledging that they happened simultaneoulsy, what do we do there?"

I don't think 1/2 of the people misunderstood it and if they did I think they mentioned something about it instead of the way you just told him what he should do in a situation that doesn't even pertain to this.

But I like the way you waited for others to respond before you responded to me! :D

The rule that covers this situation, I believe, is 2-3.

A couple of Federation penalty fundamentals:
<li>where possible, all aspects of the penalty are applied</li>
<li>penalize in the order of occurance</li>
<li>POI does not yet officially exist</li>
<li>"cancelling-out" FTs exists on simultaneous fouls and could include not awarding a team FTs even if they're in the bonus</li>

B's foul gives A (i) a possible 1+1 with a rebound, or (ii) possession. A's foul gives B 2+possession.

If B's foul is a non-bonus foul, then I can see giving B 2 shots for the T (bullet 1) and then going with the arrow to determine possession. If B's foul is a bonus foul, I can see cancelling the FTs (bullet 4), and give B possession (bullet 1).

The difference between these two is that FTs and possession are dependant on the number of team fouls against one team. I don't like this. Therefore, I think the above logic is not sufficient.

This year: no shots, possession using arrow.

Next year: no shots, possession using POI.

[Edited by JugglingReferee on May 10th, 2005 at 07:24 AM]

Really? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :)

What's the official date?

Very often it varies from state to state per when the state association officially adopts the rules. For example, here in PA, new rules do not go into effect until after the Rules Interpretation Meetings that are mandatory for officials and coaches. This happens around November 1, therefore, during the fall season when Girls Middle School/Junior High plays, the rules from the previous year are used, unless otherwise mandated by the state through the individual officials' organizations.