Double Foul

[gostars]

This happened in the consolation championship game of a tournament. I was sitting at the table. A1 goes up to shoot and is fouled on the arm by B1. After A1 released the ball (but is still airborne) she grabs B1 and ends up dragging her down to the floor. Official calls a double foul. The calling official reports the double foul to the table and then calls both coaches together to explain. He said that A1 would be shooting two since she was fouled in the act of shooting. After a discussion with his partner he then informed the benches that since we now go POI after double fouls Team A will get the ball on the baseline. Is this correct? Since the player had released the ball when she committed the foul there is no player/team control, right? I'm thinking since no team had control they should have gone to the arrow but I'm not sure.

[brainbrian]

I may bd wrong but I would think the point of interruption would be on the free throw. Just let them shoot the free throws then continue from there, whoever gets the rebound gets the ball or if the second throw is made the other team gets the ball on the baseline.

That's my guess.

[blindzebra]

*4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1.The try is successful. RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try and the goal is scored. Play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36)


SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION

ART. 1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART. 2…Play shall be resumed by:

a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

It should have gone to the arrow, since there was no team control and the try was not successful.

[wwcfoa43]

I do not believe this should be ruled as a double foul since it is clear that the two fouls did not happen at "approximately the same time" (unlike the blarge quoted above). This distinction is made even more clear when one foul occured with possession and the other occured after.

So I would rule as a false double. Award two free throws for the first foul with the lane clear and then award the ball for a throw-in by B for the player control foul.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by wwcfoa43
I do not believe this should be ruled as a double foul since it is clear that the two fouls did not happen at "approximately the same time" (unlike the blarge quoted above). This distinction is made even more clear when one foul occured with possession and the other occured after.

So I would rule as a false double. Award two free throws for the first foul with the lane clear and then award the ball for a throw-in by B for the player control foul.

There is no difference between the play in this thread and the case play, A1 and B1 committed fouls against each other during a live ball.

[gostars]

Would the ruling be any different if A1 had released the ball (but was still airborne) before she was fouled by B1?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
There is no difference between the play in this thread and the case play, A1 and B1 committed fouls against each other during a live ball.

Actually, there are quite a few differences. First, in the original play, the contacts did not occur simultaneously. One contact was before the release, and one was after. Second, the case book play has two officials with two different calls. The double foul is the "compromise" call. In the original play, one official called, and called a double foul.

The original call must be a judgment by the calling official, as to whether it was a double, or a false double. Personally, I'd have called it a false double, since the release happened inbetween the two contacts. Also, calling it a false double makes enforcement a lot easier.

If it's really (or judged) a true double foul, the basket doesn't count if it goes, and the ref has to determine whether it happened before or after release. If before release, A gets the ball for the throw-in. If after, go to the arrow. That feels unwieldy to me, and very hard to explain, in this situation.

My vote it for false double foul. A1 shoots two with the lane cleared, B1 gets the ball oob regardless of the success of the ft's.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by gostars
Would the ruling be any different if A1 had released the ball (but was still airborne) before she was fouled by B1?

Nope, the fouls occurred during the same act--i.e. "the act of shooting" as defined in R4-41-1. Note that the complete "act of shooting" also includes the start of the try when the shooter first gathers the ball right up to the time the airborne shooter lands.

If you've got two opponents committing fouls against each other during this same act, then that meets the book definition of a "double foul" under R4-19-8 imo. If they occur during the same act, that's close enough to "approximately the same time".

If B1 hadda fouled A1, and then airborne A1 charged B2, then you would have a different situation. That one is a false double foul because one of the attributes of a double foul is missing- the proviso that the fouls must be committed by opponents against each other. That's why a differnt play- 4.19.9SitA- is in the case book.

I agree with blindzebra, iow.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 31st, 2005 at 11:26 AM]

[gostars]

Just found this:

Rule 4-19.6
A player control foul is a common foul committed by a player while he/she is in control of the ball OR BY AN AIRBORN SHOOTER.

Looks like we have a Personal foul followed by a PC foul. I'm probably going with the false double ruling.

[ChuckElias]

False double. There's a case play almost exactly matching this somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. . .

4.19.8 Situation A of last year's case book. This year's book is in my bag and I don't feel like trudging upstairs to get it. Nevada will post this year's citation, if it's different.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
False double. There's a case play almost exactly matching this somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. . .

4.19.8 Situation A of last year's case book. This year's book is in my bag and I don't feel like trudging upstairs to get it. Nevada will post this year's citation, if it's different.

Except, Chuck, that the platy you cited has B1 fouling A1, and A1 fouling B2. The different B players involved make it a false double.

In the play at the start of the thread, B1 fouls A1 and A1 fouls B1 -- only one B player is involved. That, imo, makes it a double foul. (And I think that since all this happend during the try, it fits the definition of "approximately the same time").

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
False double. There's a case play almost exactly matching this somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. . .

4.19.8 Situation A of last year's case book. This year's book is in my bag and I don't feel like trudging upstairs to get it. Nevada will post this year's citation, if it's different.

Um, Chuck, I already pointed out that last year's 4.19.8SitA - which is the same as 4.19.9SitA in this year's book that I cited above at 121:24am this morning- refers to B1 fouling A1, followed by A1 fouling B2. That's a different situation completely than B1 fouling A1 followed by A1 fouling B1.

Apples and oranges.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Except, Chuck, that the platy you cited has B1 fouling A1, and A1 fouling B2. The different B players involved make it a false double.

Yup, missed that little tidbit. It still smells like a false double to me, tho. I guess it comes down to "approximately the same time".

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, there are quite a few differences. First, in the original play, the contacts did not occur simultaneously. One contact was before the release, and one was after. Second, the case book play has two officials with two different calls. The double foul is the "compromise" call. In the original play, one official called, and called a double foul.

The original call must be a judgment by the calling official, as to whether it was a double, or a false double. Personally, I'd have called it a false double, since the release happened inbetween the two contacts. Also, calling it a false double makes enforcement a lot easier.

If it's really (or judged) a true double foul, the basket doesn't count if it goes, and the ref has to determine whether it happened before or after release. If before release, A gets the ball for the throw-in. If after, go to the arrow. That feels unwieldy to me, and very hard to explain, in this situation.

My vote it for false double foul. A1 shoots two with the lane cleared, B1 gets the ball oob regardless of the success of the ft's.

I agree with this and the reasoning, except that the basket DOES count if successful on a true double foul. It doesn't count on the False double because the second foul is by an airborne shooter thus it is a PC foul, which cancels the goal.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Um, Chuck, I already pointed out that last year's 4.19.8SitA - which is the same as 4.19.9SitA in this year's book that I cited above at 121:24am this morning

You think I actually read any of your posts?!?!