Double intentional foul

[MRIGUY]

If you had a double personal foul which is intentional does each player get two free throws.

[Raymond]

Rule 10-24 No shots; Point of Interuption

[HawkeyeCubP]

No free throws. Go to POI.

4-19-3 - Intentional foul is a personal foul...

4-19-8-a - Double foul is where opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approx. the same time...

Rule 10 Summary 1-c - No free throws for double personal fouls - go to POI.

4-36-1 - POI for double fouls.

[tjones1]

It's the same in NFHS. 4-36-1

[Back In The Saddle]

There is no such beast as a double intentional foul. It's either a double foul, of the personal or technical variety, or an intentional foul. They, double and intentional, are different types of fouls and each carries a different penalty.

The penalty for a double foul is the recording of the fouls, then carry on from POI.

The penalty for an intentional foul is 2 shots and the ball at the nearest spot.

If you truly have two opponents who foul each other intentionally, one of the two fouled first. Call that first intentional foul. Normally you would ignore any subsequent foul, unless it's intentional or flagrant. In this case, then you have a second foul, after the first, making a false double foul. Administer the penalties in the order they occurred, and go from there.

I'm curious, is this an actual occurrance? If so, tell us a story. This I gotta hear!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

There is no such beast as a double intentional foul.

In the the NCAA rulebook there is.

2-14-7.f
6-3-1.f
7-4-1.i
7-5-15
8-6-2
10-24
Foul Penalty Chart

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

There is no such beast as a double intentional foul.

Why not?

The rules define double personal fouls and double technical fouls.

A personal foul might be intentional.

A technical foul might be intentional.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the the NCAA rulebook there is.

2-14-7.f
6-3-1.f
7-4-1.i
7-5-15
8-6-2
10-24
Foul Penalty Chart

That would be a new one on me, but then I do not pretend to know too much about NCAA rules.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Why not?

The rules define double personal fouls and double technical fouls.

A personal foul might be intentional.

A technical foul might be intentional.

If 2 players deliberately push each other during a live ball, you certainly could call that a double intentional personal foul. If the same acts occurred during a dead ball, you could also call a double intentional technical foul too. R4-19-1NOTE kinda says that.

Moot point really as long as the penalties offset.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Why not?

The rules define double personal fouls and double technical fouls.

A personal foul might be intentional.

A technical foul might be intentional.

Speaking NFHS rules only, 4-19 defines all the various kinds of fouls. While an intentional foul is defined in terms of being a personal or technical foul, it is a different kind of foul altogether. It is the same situation for a player control foul; it is defined in terms of being a common foul, but is an altogether different type. Being different types of fouls, they even have their own penalties, seperate from common, personal or technical fouls.

Now the reason I bring up the analogy with the player control foul is that there are some well known rather distinctive cases in the case book that arise because a PC foul is not, in fact, just a common foul. Like the one where B1 fouls A1, then A1 plows into B2.

In the same way, an intentional foul is not, in fact, just a personal or technical foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If 2 players deliberately push each other during a live ball, you certainly could call that a double intentional personal foul. If the same acts occurred during a dead ball, you could also call a double intentional technical foul too. R4-19-1NOTE kinda says that.

Moot point really as long as the penalties offset.

Hmmm, all I've got at the moment is a 2 year old ecopy of the rules, and it has no such note. I'll have to look this up when I get this year's dead tree version out of my bag tonight. Perhaps I need to rescind my statement.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In the same way, an intentional foul is not, in fact, just a personal or technical foul.

What would you call if 2 opponents who pushed other at approximately the same time right after a shot went in, and you didn't feel that their actions were flagrant?

What would you call it if they did this during play, but 20 feet away from the ball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What would you call if 2 opponents who pushed other at approximately the same time right after a shot went in, and you didn't feel that their actions were flagrant?

Whjat would you call it if they did this during play, but 20 feet away from the ball.

Very good questions. The first one I'd probably have a double technical. The second leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Perhaps just a double foul.

I can see the case for having a double intentional, but it goes against my current understanding that each of the types of fouls in 4-19 is a distinct type, and they don't combine to create new types.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Very good questions. The first one I'd probably have a double technical.

I can see the case for having a double intentional, but it goes against my current understanding that each of the types of fouls in 4-19 is a distinct type, and they don't combine to create new types.

Personal fouls and technical fouls are distinct types in 4-19, and they combine to create new types, don't they?

The NOTE from 4-19-1 reads "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter".

If you have a double technicals for contact fouls by opponents on each other after the ball is dead on a made basket, your two choices then would be a double intentional technical foul or a double flagrant technical foul. Make sense?

Still a moot point anyway, as long as you rule them a double technical foul or a double intentional technical foul, and also do the same for flagrant acts. The penalties are the same, so it's basically just semantics.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Personal fouls and technical fouls are distinct types in 4-19, and they combine to create new types, don't they?

The NOTE from 4-19-1 reads "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter".

If you have a double technicals for contact fouls by opponents on each other after the ball is dead on a made basket, your two choices then would be a double intentional technical foul or a double flagrant technical foul. Make sense?

Still a moot point anyway, as long as you rule them a double technical foul or a double intentional technical foul, and also do the same for flagrant acts. The penalties are the same, so it's basically just semantics.

Hmmm, plenty to think about here. For the first time, the notion of an intentional technical makes sense in HS rules to me now.

As for the two guys 20 feet from the ball going at it, I'm not sure I can see calling this a double intentional. How would this be different than two donkies going at it in the post. That's away from the ball too. Yet despite the definition of intentional foul, I think I can say that this would be universally called either a personal foul on one of the players, or a regular double foul on both.

Not that this negates your point, of course. Just saying