Definitive answer on IAABO Refresher Test Question #58

Camron Rust · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 19, 2001, 05:18pm

I just came from the home of Howard Mayo (helping him on an unrelated computer problem). For those that don't know, Howard just completed a 4-year term on the NF rules committee and is currently the rules interpreter for the state of Oregon.

I took the opportunity to ask him specifically about this situation.

His ruling:

It is NOT a false double foul because the fouls in a false double foul must occur one after the other within the same stop-clock period.

It is NOT a double foul either since, as we all agreed, the fouls were not committed by two opponents against each other.

It is simply a pair of personal fouls that happened simultaneously...simultaneous fouls.

The FTs are shot as warranted by the bonus situation for each team and then the arrow is used to determine possession.

He stated that while it is not specified and not absolutely required, the team without the arrow sould shoot any FTs first in order to avoid going back and forth on the court unnecessarily.

That should pretty much sum it up!

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 20, 2001, 11:31pm

Camron:

I emailed Howard last night after reading your post. Please email me through my profile and I will share my email and Howard's responese with you.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 22, 2001, 12:00am

After reading Camron's posting (of Oct. 19, 2001) of his conversation with Howard Mayo, I emailed Howard myself.

Everybody should know that Howard did just complete a term and maybe two terms on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. Howard is also the IAABO State Interpreter for Oregon and sits in the two IAABO Committees: Visualization and Education with me, and Rules Examination (Roger MacTavish, Chairman).

In my email I explained why Roger and I intepretered the foul situation in Question #58 is a false double foul. I gave him all of the previous rule citations that I have already posted in this forum. Howard, emailed me later in the evening and concurred with Roger and me that the foul situation in Question #58 is, indeed, a false double foul situation.