Nevada Ref and I worked 4 games together this weekend. Here is one of the sitches that came about:
A1 has the ball at FT line extended -
B1 fouls A1 -
While B1 is fouling A1, A1 disrespectfully addresses -
I did not whap A1(Don't ask) -
How would we have proceeded if I had called the T?

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?

We gave each other input but I want to see what the brainiacs on here have to say.
AAR

Who did A1 disrespectfully address? Was he made because he just got fouled? If so then I would have to say that was not simultaneous and you'd have to handle in order they occured. If in 1 and 1 then A1 shoots with a cleared lane, then team B shoots the T and B's ball at mid court.

If no 1 and 1 then team B shoots the T and they get the ball at mid court. Coach A should buy A1 a zipper and have his Momma sew his lips shut so he doesn't lose him another possession.

BTW, I don't consider myself a brainiac.

Uhh, ChrisSportFan let me toot AAR's horn a little.

He is a good ref. I have worked with him in a state championship and he is on point. He wasn't asking how things should go if he had a foul and then a T. He wanted to know how things would go if they occured at the same time. You changed it for him then gave him advice on something that I know for a fact he has administered many times before.

That is not what happened.
Yours is administration 101.(No problem on yours)
If you change the situation, it is a completely different play.
Thanks though.
AAR

Thanks T!!

I'm not sure if it's all that clear after reading the summary of penalties on pg. 67 of the FED rulebook. It says no FTs for simultaneous personal or technical fouls by opponents. This suggests to me that there are no FTs if all of the simultaneous fouls are of the same type. IOW, it sounds to me like there are no FTs when simultaneous personal fouls are committed or when simultaneous technical fouls are committed. Otherwise why specify "personal or technical"? What else is there?

So if the fouls are of different types, maybe you shoot all the FTs and award the ball to the team that did not commit the technical foul.

If I'm reading too much into it, then it just means no FTs for any simultaneous fouls, and just go to the arrow. The case book only gives an example of simultaneous personals.

I think the book is ambiguous at best and your explanation could be a pefectly valid interp. I was leaning the other way...no FTs and go to the arrow.

The definition and the note attached to the definition, however, do seem to suggest that the writers of the simultaneous foul rule only comprehended two fouls of the same type (both personal or both technical).

My condolences. :)

No arrow this coming season, it's POI.;)

How I handle it is going to be based on who A1 is disrespectfully addressing. If it is B1 I go simultaneous and POI with no FTs.

If A1 is talking to me or my partner, I am leaning toward foul on B1, with whatever FTs are part of the penalty, and a whack on A1 with B shooting 2 and getting the ball at mid court.

No arrow this coming season, it's POI.;)

[/B][/QUOTE]


Could you direct me to this reference please?
Thanks in advance.
AAR

BlindZebra was half right - POI will be used for the following situations.........

7-5-9, 6-4-3g, 4-36 New:
Changed the penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls from an alternating possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition for “point of interruption” was also added.

Note that it is NOT intended for use during a "single" technical foul. The NFHS Rules committee did not want one team to benefit during a double/simultaneous technical situation based on the arrow. Therefore, player A1 gets hit w/ a T, Team B shoots FT's AND will get the ball (NO POI).

I vote for no shots, POI.

The situation as described could fall under simultaneous fouls. The language in the rules is vague about this, which is why this thread started.

If you judge that the personal and technical happened at the same time it would be POI under simultaneous fouls.

If you judge A1's T resulted from his reaction to B1's foul it is not simultaneous the foul by B1 came first and you administer in order.

Without clarification this is a play where you could be right either way.

Just off the top of my head and by going by 2004-05 rules I would assume A1 would shoot free-throws if his team was in the bonus. Then a team B member would shoot two free-throws for the technical, then team B would get the ball at mid-court.

In the center circle about 30 seconds before the first basketball game I ever officiated my partner looked at me and said, "Let's have fun and keep it simple." :D

BZ, not to sound snooty, but if you read the whole thread, the situation as described is a simultaneous foul situation. The personal and technical occur at the same time. So the question is how we administer this.

That is precisely what is vague. Do a personal foul plus a technical foul at the same time equal a simultaneous foul? I don't think it's all that cut-and-dried in the rules. And the casebook doesn't help, b/c the only case they give us for simultaneous fouls describes two personal fouls; not one of each.

I have no dog in this fight. I don't really care which way it gets resolved. I'm just saying it needs to be resolved, b/c it's not clear in the rules.

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.

He didn't even mention that one of the games went double OT.

Actually, we only worked 3 games together as the first one was a forfeit.

Could it be possible that I did not sit at my computer all day waiting to see if you would respond so I could comment? Like I said, EXCUSE ME for starting a pissing match. I meerly thought I was responding to a discussion board.

Maybe it felt like 4 to him?

Maybe AAR forfeited when he saw who his partner was?

:lol:

Then I feel his pain, there have been times when I've walked into a gym to do a marathon aau set and felt like turning around when I saw who my partner was gonna be.

(There have been times when I needed to drag my partner back into the gym too, but that's another thread.)

Yes - The actual game count was 3(one WAS a forfeit) however, I blamed NevadaRef for the Double OT(he was R on that one) so I count it as 4 games!!
and Nevada I T'd that coach for U so you can't blame me for the "extra work"!!

Not a false double foul.

The definition of false double foul says:
<em>A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the <B>second of which occurs before the clock is started <FONT COLOR=RED>following</FONT> the first</B>, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent.</em>

It's also not a double foul since the infractions were not committed against each other.

All that's left is simultaneous.

Penalty in the new rules...not sure.

Under the old rules, I belive the AP arrow would be used and the throwin spot would be determined by the foul of the team without the arrow.

Juulie,

Is your scenario (D) where the PF on B1 occurs at the same time as the TF on A1? Or is where PF on B1 occurs and then the TF on A1? I'm guessing because of this thread that it's the former, I just wanted to be sure. Because if it's the latter, then you shoot 1+1 for PF on B1 and then 2+possession for TF on A1.

http://kommentar.typepad.com/photos/...artmanff_1.gif

Screw you guys. I'm goin' home.


[Edited by Nevadaref on May 11th, 2005 at 03:01 AM]