Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
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.
|
Ok I see the light now LOL...I do believe we could do away with the simultaneous foul and just add some language such as "personal fouls committed by each team at approxiamately the same time" or "technical fouls committed by each team at approxiamately the same time" but that might be toooooo easy....
Wed Mar 08, 2006, 04:01pm
Hybrid Mode
