IAABO Refresher Test Question #58.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Okay Dan, you were right, I couldn't resist.

Oh my God! Holy jumpin' bejeebees! Wow! Geeze Louise,
saints be praised and Good Night Irene!

Hey Brad, can I somehow get this post gilded and mounted
on a plaque?



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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Mark, first, if you're going to quote someone else, quote everything, not just what serves your purpose. here's Bob's entire post.

Originally posted by bob jenkins on the McGriff Basketball Board
Without taking sides in this interesting (but slowly becoming repetitive) debate, I'll point out that the bold phrase above can be read in two ways.

One is as you've read it -- the foul must occur "following the first".

The second is as Mark reads it -- it's not the sequencing of the fouls that's important, it's the time on the clock that's important.

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 soesn't matter whether the fouls occurred simultaneously or sequentially -- the definition still applies (according to Mark).

I personally am more troubled by how this can happen. That is, if we can't have a simultaneous foul and violation (the officials must decide which occurred first), the how can we have simultaneous P fouls? Why don't we treat these instances the same?

Second, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Bob's right, this thing has become very repetitive. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other to change his mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Oh my God! Holy jumpin' bejeebees! Wow! Geeze Louise,
saints be praised and Good Night Irene!

Hey Brad, can I somehow get this post gilded and mounted
on a plaque?



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.

There's one in every crowd.

[Tim Roden]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
[Tim, you said, "this is also false multiple." I'm sure you wrote that mistakenly, since there's a foul on each team, not two fouls on the same team.

Finally, this is fun! Glad to see things are starting to heat up! [/B]

You are correct, I ment false double. False multiple is a slightly different animal.

Yes it is fun finally getting back into the rule book.

[Just Curious]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
"It doesn't matter whether the fouls occurred simultaneously or sequentially -- the definition still applies." by Bob Jenkins

!?!?!?!?!?!?!Really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

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]

[rockyroad]

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

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

Whoa, ho, hey, hold on there, wait a minute. Has anybody actually said what the right answer is? This discussion's been going on so long I forgot what I'm supposed to give for an answer. I'm not looking forward to all those JH games

Chuck

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Whoa, ho, hey, hold on there, wait a minute. Has anybody actually said what the right answer is? This discussion's been going on so long I forgot what I'm supposed to give for an answer. I'm not looking forward to all those JH games

Chuck

Whether it is a false double foul or just simultaneous personal fouls is ultimately of no consequence. In either case, you shoot the FTs as needed (1+1 or 2). Ball OOB with to the team with the arrow.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Whether it is a false double foul or just simultaneous personal fouls is ultimately of no consequence. In either case, you shoot the FTs as needed (1+1 or 2). Ball OOB with to the team with the arrow.

Great, thanks. Now, uh, what was the question, again?

Chuck

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Whoa, ho, hey, hold on there, wait a minute. Has anybody actually said what the right answer is? This discussion's been going on so long I forgot what I'm supposed to give for an answer. I'm not looking forward to all those JH games

Chuck

Why not? You're more likely to see this sitch in a JH
game! And you'll know exactly what to do!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


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

Are you sure about this? Isn't exchanging punches considered fighting? Isn't fighting a flagrant technical foul, even if the ball is live? I'm pretty sure your assessment of the above situation is incorrect.

Chuck

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Why is the foul situation in Question #58 a false double foul?...

Oh man, my head hurts.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Are you sure about this? Isn't exchanging punches considered fighting? Isn't fighting a flagrant technical foul, even if the ball is live? I'm pretty sure your assessment of the above situation is incorrect.

Chuck

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.

[ChuckElias]

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