"Simultaneous" Different Fouls

[Almost Always Right]

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

[ChrisSportsFan]

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.

[tomegun]

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.

[Almost Always Right]

Originally posted by ChrisSportsFan
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.

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

[Almost Always Right]

Originally posted by tomegun
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.

Thanks T!!

[ChuckElias]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
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).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
Nevada Ref and I worked 4 games together this weekend.

My condolences.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

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).

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.

[Almost Always Right]

No arrow this coming season, it's POI.

[/B][/QUOTE]


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

[jeffpea]

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).

[BktBallRef]

I vote for no shots, POI.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by jeffpea
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).

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.

[brainbrian]

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."

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by blindzebra
The situation as described could fall under simultaneous fouls.

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.

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

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.