|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
saints be praised and Good Night Irene! Hey Brad, can I somehow get this post gilded and mounted on a plaque? :D Anyway, great discussion folks and if anyone gets IAABO #58 wrong they should be made to work only girls JH games for an entire season. :) |
BktBallRef this is most certainly a false doubl foul situation, please read the following, it clarifies what I have been saying:
"That is, if A1 fouls B1 at 10:00, and B2 fouls A2 also at 10:00, the time on the B2 foul is "before the clock started following the [A1 foul]". (Obviously, I'm ignoring the situation where the clock starts for a fraction of a second, but it isn't registered onthe display.) It doesn't matter whether the fouls occurred simultaneously or sequentially -- the definition still applies." by Bob Jenkins Furthermore, this is not an IAABO interpretation, IAABO only uses NFHS/NCAA intepretations. |
Mark, first, if you're going to quote someone else, quote everything, not just what serves your purpose. here's Bob's entire post.
Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes it is fun finally getting back into the rule book. |
Quote:
I believe there's a difference.... I don't see it as a FDF and it's definitely not a DF...... No FT's and I'm going to the arrow.... [Edited by Just Curious on Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:08 AM] |
Just to defend myself a little, I know that simultaneous fouls are "mentioned" in 6-3-3...I never said they weren't mentioned - I said there is no "provision" for them...in other words, there is nothing in the rule book to tell us exactly how to handle them...also, "aresn't" actually is a term we Vancouverites use to differentiate ourselves from the Canadian Vancouverites - who stole our name, by the way...we figure no one else would ever use a word like that!!
DJ |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Chuck :D |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
|
Quote:
Chuck |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
game! And you'll know exactly what to do! :) |
Why is the foul situation in Question #58 a false double foul?
We really need to go back in history a little bit before the double foul definition was modified. Until a few years ago the definition of a double foul was what is now the definition of a double personal foul. The double foul definition was split into double personal foul and double technical foul because too many officials were forgetting that contact fouls when the ball is live are personal fouls. The classic example of this was while A1 was dribbling the ball, A2 and B2 traded punches. There were officials that were charging these as flagrant technical fouls and awarding free throws to both teams. This was not correct. These fouls were flagrant personal fouls and because the fouls were personal foul this was a double foul and no free throws are shot for a double foul. The NFHS and NCAA decided to modify the definition and thus was born the double personal foul and the double technical foul. But the definition for a false double foul stayed the same. Before the double foul definition was modified, what is now defined as a double technical foul was considered a false double foul because the double foul definition was what is now the double personal foul definition. When the word double precedes the word foul in basketball it means that there are fouls committed by both teams during the time between the first foul or fouls were committed by either team and before the clock starts after the first foul or fouls were committed by either team. The fact that there are fouls by both teams means that the situation is either a double (personal or technical) foul situation or a false double foul situation. There cannot be an overall foul situation where there are fouls by both teams during the time frame defined in the false double foul definition that is not either a double foul or a false double foul situation. One must also remember that in a false double foul situation you can have any combination of the following types of fouls: a) double personal foul, b) simultaneous personal fouls, c) double technical foul, d) simultaneous technical fouls, e) multiple fouls, and/or d) false multiple fouls. |
Are you sure?
Quote:
Chuck |
Quote:
|
Re: Are you sure?
Quote:
The following rule references cover the situation I described: NFHS R4-S18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as: A1: An attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made. A2: An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act toward an oppoenent that causes an oppoonent to retaliate by fighting. NFHS R4-S19-A1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead. NFHS R4-219-A4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act. Also, the definition of fighting is a relatively new addition to the rules book. |
Now, I'm not sure
Mark, interesting references. I can see why you'd say these were personal. But I looked up fighting in the NF rulebook, and I'm almost sure it was listed under player technicals in Rule 10. I'm going to have to go back and double check. Good references tho.
Chuck |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37am. |