Foul on Shooter then PC

[w_sohl]

A1 drives to the hoop and is fouled in the act of shooting by B1. During the action B2 had set up before A1 was airborne in the path of the shooter and was subsequently ran into by A1.

Do we have a false double foul here and how is it administered?

My thoughts are we:

1) Report both fouls on A1 and B1
2) A1 does not get to shoot because of the charge and
3) B ball out of bounds (or do we go arrow)

[JLMatthew]

not correct...report both fouls on A1 and B1. Basket does not count if it went in because of the PC. Shooter gets two shots because of the foul on B1. Resume play as normal after the second free throw.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by JLMatthew

not correct...report both fouls on A1 and B1. Basket does not count if it went in because of the PC. Shooter gets two shots because of the foul on B1. Resume play as normal after the second free throw.

This was my next guess.

[JRutledge]

I understand that there is a rule on how to enforce this. But please do not call this. All you are going to do is cause a problem for yourself. Even if you get this right, no one will understand it and you will spend more time explaining it than enforcing it. If the shooter is fouled, consider the next contact to be a result of the contact on the shot. Or ignore the contact on the shooter if it did not affect the play and move on. I know someone will say enforce the rules the way they are written, but all you are doing is causing a problem for yourself. This to me is like calling a multiple foul. You might be completely right, but no one will understand and they will complain you got it wrong even when you got it right.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

A1 drives to the hoop and is fouled in the act of shooting by B1. During the action B2 had set up before A1 was airborne in the path of the shooter and was subsequently ran into by A1.

Do we have a false double foul here and how is it administered?

My thoughts are we:

1) Report both fouls on A1 and B1
2) A1 does not get to shoot because of the charge and
3) B ball out of bounds (or do we go arrow)

False double. No basket, award 2 shots (or 3 in the very odd case of behind the arc).

1. Yes.
2. A1 was fouled shooting. S/he gets 2 shots.
3. See JR's response.

A's PC foul merely means that s/he cannot score a basket on the play.

Unlike Rut's bad advice, call it is that is what it is! If A1 is pushed into B1, don't call the PC, but if there's a hack on the arm while A1 is going up, and A1 charges right into B1, you should call it. I've had this happen once. Totally the correct call. Don't be afraid to have the nuts to call this!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Unlike Rut's bad advice, call it is that is what it is! If A1 is pushed into B1, don't call the PC, but if there's a hack on the arm while A1 is going up, and A1 charges right into B1, you should call it. I've had this happen once. Totally the correct call. Don't be afraid to have the nuts to call this!

It is not about having nuts. It is about calling what is right. If you call that and you mess up any part of that application, you will cause more problems for yourself. To me that is being too technical. Now maybe in Canada they like being technical, but I have never, never, never seen that called in any game I have watched or officiated. And if you call it, the coach is going to call the assignor to make sure you got it right and they there will be a debate if you even needed to call a PC foul. One play is going to create for you a lot of scrutiny over what would which are already tough calls.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JLMatthew

not correct...report both fouls on A1 and B1. Basket does not count if it went in because of the PC. Shooter gets two shots because of the foul on B1. Resume play as normal after the second free throw.

Close.....

Shooter gets 2 FT's with no one lined up. If the last FT by A1 is good, team B will get an unrestricted throw-in anywhere along the endline. If the last FT by A1 is missed, team B will get a spot throw-in on the endline.

Case book 4.19.9SitA.

[JLMatthew]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Close.....

Shooter gets 2 FT's with no one lined up. If the last FT by A1 is good, team B will get an unrestricted throw-in anywhere along the endline. If the last FT by A1 is missed, team B will get a spot throw-in on the endline.

Case book 4.19.9SitA.

good catch...I defer to your superior knowledge and wisdom in this matter...You are very correct.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about having nuts. It is about calling what is right. If you call that and you mess up any part of that application, you will cause more problems for yourself. To me that is being too technical. Now maybe in Canada they like being technical, but I have never, never, never seen that called in any game I have watched or officiated. And if you call it, the coach is going to call the assignor to make sure you got it right and they there will be a debate if you even needed to call a PC foul. One play is going to create for you a lot of scrutiny over what would which are already tough calls.

Peace

Canada is no different that the US in terms of being technical. We will agree to disagree.

Question: A1 in the act, gets hacked and after the foul, travels, shoots, and the ball goes in. Whatcha got? Did one of those acts cause the other?

Edit: Like I said, I've called it once. Was about 5 years ago. I don't recall seeing it before then, and certainly have not seen a situation to call it again - or even closely. It's rare, but A1 still can't bowl over B1.

So what calls are you talking about that are tough? Is a PC a tough call for you? A shooting foul?

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Canada is no different that the US in terms of being technical. We will agree to disagree.

Question: A1 in the act, gets hacked and after the foul, travels, shoots, and the ball goes in. Whatcha got? Did one of those acts cause the other?

Edit: Like I said, I've called it once. Was about 5 years ago. I don't recall seeing it before then, and certainly have not seen a situation to call it again - or even closely. It's rare, but A1 still can't bowl over B1.

So what calls are you talking about that are tough? Is a PC a tough call for you? A shooting foul?

Am I missing something here? If A1 gets fouled, I've got a foul - if the contact occurred before the travelling. What else could you call?

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Question: A1 in the act, gets hacked and after the foul, travels, shoots, and the ball goes in. Whatcha got? Did one of those acts cause the other?

If the foul caused the travel. No Basket. The player started his habitual motion to shoot so we are shooting 2 free throws.

If the foul did not cause the travel then I could see a non shooting foul being called. You can't have a try if you travel, correct?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

If the foul did not cause the travel then I could see a non shooting foul being called. You can't have a try if you travel, correct?

Incorrect. Whether one act caused another has no relevance to the final call. If a player is fouled in the act of shooting, then it's a shooting foul. Nothing can change that, be it a subsequent PC foul or a travel by the shooter. The shooter will still get his 2 or 3 FT's that are coming to him for the foul. All the PC or travel will do is wipe out the shot if it does happen to go.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I understand that there is a rule on how to enforce this. But please do not call this. All you are going to do is cause a problem for yourself. Even if you get this right, no one will understand it and you will spend more time explaining it than enforcing it. If the shooter is fouled, consider the next contact to be a result of the contact on the shot.
...

I agree with you: don't call this. But I would say why in a different way: we cannot know for sure if the shooter would have made a charge without the previous foul.

I've seen double contacts of this kind, but I've never seen them called as a "false double foul". OK, the defender had good position, but the shooting foul put the shooter out of balance. And we know that equilibrium is critical in basketball. I could think of a double call in some very rare situations but, in such cases, I would think whether to call only the charge.

Let's look at another situation: A1 is a dribbler, B1 has LGP on A1; B2 pushes A1 who then "charges" B1. Are we calling a foul on A1? No, you say, because the contact between A1 and B1 is a dead ball contact. But why the rules say that the ball does not become dead after a foul on a shooter? Just to allow the shooter to finish their movement and score.

Ciao

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Canada is no different that the US in terms of being technical. We will agree to disagree.

Question: A1 in the act, gets hacked and after the foul, travels, shoots, and the ball goes in. Whatcha got? Did one of those acts cause the other?

Edit: Like I said, I've called it once. Was about 5 years ago. I don't recall seeing it before then, and certainly have not seen a situation to call it again - or even closely. It's rare, but A1 still can't bowl over B1.

So what calls are you talking about that are tough? Is a PC a tough call for you? A shooting foul?

I think eg-Italy said it best. You have a foul on the shooter who is knocked off balance and now you are going to penalize them for getting fouled? Now if you want to make that call go right ahead. I have never made that call and plan to never make that call ever. Calling a PC foul is something someone can understand. Calling a shooting foul is something someone can understand. Calling a foul on a shooter that was fouled and likely knocked off balance is asinine. So you are telling me we should call a foul on a shooter that was pushed from behind and into a defender that was in LGP? Go right ahead and make that call.

I had a game this year where we called a simultaneous foul and we spent more time trying to justify this call then we spent enforcing it. Both coaches wanted an explanation and if it was not for me we would have not enforced it right. I had a shooting foul with the ball going in and my partner had an off ball foul. I tried to talk him into either passing on the foul because everyone saw my shooter get creamed to the floor. Hardly anyone saw his foul. I went along with the call because we did blow our whistle at the same time and that is what the rules say. Never again.

Peace

[Texas Aggie]

Usually in a situation like this, it isn't a matter of one official making the call, its a matter of two officials calling the two separate fouls. I've encountered this play a couple of times, and both times, that was what happened. Ironically, I called both the "front" and "back" ends of the play the two times (i.e., first I had the shooting foul, and second, I had the PC).

We got together and decided that the rules called for the false double foul, so that's how we enforced it. Just didn't use that term. In the second play I had, it was a boys varsity game with playoff implications. I told both coaches what we had, and both said, "OK."

I don't know if I would make both foul calls on my own, but I wouldn't run away from the call if its the correct call. This is different from a multiple foul. A multiple foul, in my view, is for that once or twice a career situation where that sort of penalty is appropriate -- say a blowout and the losing team is trying to goon things up.