Foul on Shooter then PC

[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.

[Ron Giacoma]

I have seen this situation many times and I do not understand why we do not change the Rules books to basically make it SIMPLE and consistant....... One veteran calls it one way and has his/her reasonings. Another says something 180 dergees different. Lets come together and united. Afterall, this is not politics. This is a call we make for adolescence. We should all agree or have a book that tells us how to agree with each other so the teenagers aren't so confused. Then we all move forward with the same message/rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ron Giacoma

I have seen this situation many times and I do not understand why we do not change the Rules books to basically make it SIMPLE and consistant....... One veteran calls it one way and has his/her reasonings. Another says something 180 dergees different. Lets come together and united. Afterall, this is not politics. This is a call we make for adolescence. We should all agree or have a book that tells us how to agree with each other so the teenagers aren't so confused. Then we all move forward with the same message/rule.

The reason the rule was implemented was to cover the situation where 2 different officials saw the play differently. If they both insist that they were right, what do you do now if neither wants to change their call?

On the floor, it's not a matter of who is right. It's a matter of who thinks they are right. If both do......

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The reason the rule was implemented was to cover the situation where 2 different officials saw the play differently. If they both insist that they were right, what do you do now if neither wants to change their call?

On the floor, it's not a matter of who is right. It's a matter of who thinks they are right. If both do......

I guess I could see this if two officials signaled like a "blarge" situation that might be the thing to do. But this is why you hold your whistle and you let the primary official take the call or whoever the play is discussed in your pre-game. I do not see why we are so insistent on saying "if two officials see different things." Do we not have double whistles all the time and take only one of the calls? If this is not the case, then why does this not happen often? There is a reason we only pick one foul because if we did not, then the bridges would be falling if we called what is basically a false double foul on more than one occasion.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess I could see this if two officials signaled like a "blarge" situation that might be the thing to do. But this is why you hold your whistle and you let the primary official take the call or whoever the play is discussed in your pre-game. I do not see why we are so insistent on saying "if two officials see different things." Do we not have double whistles all the time and take only one of the calls? If this is not the case, then why does this not happen often? There is a reason we only pick one foul because if we did not, then the bridges would be falling if we called what is basically a false double foul on more than one occasion.

We basically agree, and I don't think that Juggling Referee's philosophy is really that much different either. I just didn't think that, either way, you could really make a blanket statement using "always" or "never".

It doesn't happen often, as you said. But I can see a very specific situation where the false double foul might be the right call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We basically agree, and I don't think that Juggling Referee's philosophy is really that much different either. I just didn't think that, either way, you could really make a blanket statement using "always" or "never".

It doesn't happen often, as you said. But I can see a very specific situation where the false double foul might be the right call.

For me I can say "always" or "never" in this situation. If others want to call this that is there right to do so. They do have the rulebook and casebook to back them up. I just think this is worst than calling a blarge because at least a blarge is an accident. In my opinion you basically have to insist on calling this and stick with a false double foul. Be my guest.

Peace