The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 08:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
A1 releases an try for 3 points. Before returning to the ground, he is fouled by B2. Trail official blows his whistle for the foul. The basket goes in. While the try is in flight, in an attempt to get in position for a rebound, B3 fouls player A2 on the low block near the basket. Lead official blows the whistle for a foul on B3.

What is this situation? Please use rulebook terminology and refer to rules, and explain what penalties, foul shots, etc. should be administered. A is in the double bonus.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 08:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,899
This is a simultaneous foul. No FTs are awarded and the game is continued from the POI. (4-36-2b applies)
In this case that is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.

4-19-10 . . . A simultaneous foul (personal or technical) by opponents is a situation in which there is a foul by both teams which occurs at approximately the same time, but are not committed by opponents against each other.

PENALTIES: (Rule 10 Summary)
1. No free throws:
...
d. For simultaneous personal or technical fouls by opponents (point of interruption).



RULE 4, 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. 2Â…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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 08:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
I don't think this definition fits. Both fouls were by players on the same team.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 09:02pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
This is a multiple foul. Now, I'm not sure whether you ignore the penalty for the off ball foul, or if you give the free throws to A1 and then the ball to A on the baseline.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 09:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
I'm not sure that it's a multiple foul either, as the way I read it, a multiple foul is one where 2 players of team B both foul the same A player at about the same time.

[Edited by Whistles & Stripes on Feb 5th, 2006 at 09:43 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 10:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
It's a false multiple foul and both fouls carry their own penalty.

A1 will shoot 1 with the lane cleared and then it's either team A's ball at the spot of the other foul or A2 shoots FTs if they are in the bonus. 4.19.12
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 10:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,899
Quote:
Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes
I don't think this definition fits. Both fouls were by players on the same team.
Sorry, I misread the original post and thought the second foul was by a teammate of the shooter. Therefore, disregard my first post in this thread.


That means BZ is correct on the type of foul.
It is a false multiple foul.

4-19-12 . . . A false multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more fouls by the same team and the last foul is committed before the clock is started following the first, and at least one of the attributes of a multiple foul is absent.

However, the penalty is a bit strange for this play. We have the following two rules:

RULE 8, SECTION 7 PENALTY-ADMINISTRATION SEQUENCE
Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred.

RULE 10 penalty summary
7. In case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul carries its own penalty.



So it seems that the officials would have to determine which foul occurred first. A quick note, both fouls must be penalized on this play as both were committed during a live ball (or on an airborne shooter), since a try was in flight. So from that perspective it doesn't matter which occurred first, both will still be charged and penalized.

Now the two choices for resuming the game:
1. The off-ball foul occurs second: Clear the lane shoot the one FT the shooter is entitled to and then award A2 the bonus with players along the lane and continue as normal. (The scoring team would be awarded the ball OOB at the spot nearest the off-ball foul if the bonus did not apply.)
2. The off-ball foul occurs first: (This is the one that I am not sure about and this is strange.) The rules seem to dictate that the off-ball foul would be charged, bonus would be awarded to A2 with the lane cleared, but the game would then resume with players along the lane for the shooter's single FT and then continue as normal from the result of the FT. However, where I have doubt is what if the bonus is not due? The penalty for the off-ball foul seems to disappear as the scoring team would not be awarded a throw-in. So penalizing as in part 1 is not without merit here.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 10:47pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
It's a false multiple foul and both fouls carry their own penalty.

A1 will shoot 1 with the lane cleared and then it's either team A's ball at the spot of the other foul or A2 shoots FTs if they are in the bonus. 4.19.12
Agreed.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 10:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,899
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
It's a false multiple foul and both fouls carry their own penalty.

A1 will shoot 1 with the lane cleared and then it's either team A's ball at the spot of the other foul or A2 shoots FTs if they are in the bonus. 4.19.12
Agreed.
Guys,
You seem to be assuming that the foul on the airborne shooter occurred first. Why? The fact that the off-ball foul may have happened first is a subtlety that should not be overlooked.

Additionally, that casebook play does not concern an off-ball foul so it is clear in which order the fouls occurred. Therefore, it doesn't shed too much light on this scenario.

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Feb 05, 2006, 11:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
It's a false multiple foul and both fouls carry their own penalty.

A1 will shoot 1 with the lane cleared and then it's either team A's ball at the spot of the other foul or A2 shoots FTs if they are in the bonus. 4.19.12
Agreed.
Guys,
You seem to be assuming that the foul on the airborne shooter occurred first. Why? The fact that the off-ball foul may have happened first is a subtlety that should not be overlooked.

Additionally, that casebook play does not concern an off-ball foul so it is clear in which order the fouls occurred. Therefore, it doesn't shed too much light on this scenario.

Since there is not a specific case play, but it is clearly a false multiple foul, the only way to enforce both by rule is to shoot the shooting foul first.

FYI, in the original post A was in the bonus.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 06, 2006, 12:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,899
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Since there is not a specific case play, but it is clearly a false multiple foul, the only way to enforce both by rule is to shoot the shooting foul first.
Yeah, I understand that argument, but I'm not convinced that it is correct. There are many times in which the penalty for the first foul is superceded by that of a second foul.
For example, A1 is fouled by B1 prior to the bonus. Immediately following the foul, B1 shoves nearby A2 and is called for a technical foul.
The throw-in for B1's common foul simply goes away.

Therefore, as much as we may wish to punish both fouls by also awarding possession, I have serious doubts that this is the correct procedure.

Although the OP did state that the double bonus was in effect, I think that addressing the nonbonus situation is more thought provoking, and that is why I mentioned it.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 06, 2006, 02:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
It's a false multiple foul and both fouls carry their own penalty.

A1 will shoot 1 with the lane cleared and then it's either team A's ball at the spot of the other foul or A2 shoots FTs if they are in the bonus. 4.19.12
Yep!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 06, 2006, 10:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 508
This is a GREAT thread, IMHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Since there is not a specific case play, but it is clearly a false multiple foul, the only way to enforce both by rule is to shoot the shooting foul first.
Yeah, I understand that argument, but I'm not convinced that it is correct. There are many times in which the penalty for the first foul is superceded by that of a second foul.
For example, A1 is fouled by B1 prior to the bonus. Immediately following the foul, B1 shoves nearby A2 and is called for a technical foul.
The throw-in for B1's common foul simply goes away.

Therefore, as much as we may wish to punish both fouls by also awarding possession, I have serious doubts that this is the correct procedure.

Although the OP did state that the double bonus was in effect, I think that addressing the nonbonus situation is more thought provoking, and that is why I mentioned it.
This is a great thread. Thanks.

Under Rule 2-3, the last refuge of scoundrels and those who have been disenfranchised from the truth by the Rules Committee, we could flip a coin. JUST KIDDING!

Well, not exactly. If it REALLY happened, the non-bonus variant, what would you do?
__________________
Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 06, 2006, 12:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,720
Re: This is a GREAT thread, IMHO

Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

Since there is not a specific case play, but it is clearly a false multiple foul, the only way to enforce both by rule is to shoot the shooting foul first.
Yeah, I understand that argument, but I'm not convinced that it is correct. There are many times in which the penalty for the first foul is superceded by that of a second foul.
For example, A1 is fouled by B1 prior to the bonus. Immediately following the foul, B1 shoves nearby A2 and is called for a technical foul.
The throw-in for B1's common foul simply goes away.

Therefore, as much as we may wish to punish both fouls by also awarding possession, I have serious doubts that this is the correct procedure.

Although the OP did state that the double bonus was in effect, I think that addressing the nonbonus situation is more thought provoking, and that is why I mentioned it.
This is a great thread. Thanks.

Under Rule 2-3, the last refuge of scoundrels and those who have been disenfranchised from the truth by the Rules Committee, we could flip a coin. JUST KIDDING!

Well, not exactly. If it REALLY happened, the non-bonus variant, what would you do?
Enforce them in the order they occurred. It might seem "unfair" but I don't know how else we could / would do it.

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 06, 2006, 03:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
The very situation, as described, would make it extremely difficult to even figure out which occurred first. If both officials are staying with their primaries, neither would see the other foul, so we'd be going strictly off of which whistle went first. That brings patient whistles and gym noise into play.

For me, unless the shooter has supernatural hang time, it would be difficult to see the rebounding foul happening first. I think there would need to be an extremely obvious separation of the whistles to not have an A1, A2 sequence of penalties.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1