Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
If it weren't meant to be this way then there would be no need for a simultaneous fould definition, because the situation would fit nicely into the definition of a double foul or a false double foul. IMHO
|
I disagree. The definition of a simultaneous folu is needed because the fouls are not against one another. I agree with BZ that the two fouls must be the same, just as they have to be the same for a double foul. As I stated, I believe simulataneous fouls are identical in definition to double fouls, except that the fouls are not committed against each other. That's clearly spelled out in the rule.
Wed Mar 08, 2006, 03:39pm
Hybrid Mode
