Foul on Shooter then PC
 

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)

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.

I do not want to know the enforcement and here is why.
 

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

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!

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

JRut is right on this one. In the real world you are only going to have one foul, the one on B1.

foul on shooter then pc
 

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.

Interesting.

If B1 reaches in and just gets A1 on the shooting elbow on the way up and doesn't change A1's path in any way, and A1 then charges into B2 who had LGP all the way and knocks B2 into the second row, you're not going to call the charge?

Juggling Referee said in his original post that you shouldn't call a PC if B1's foul changed A1's path so that he charges into B2, but then he talked about the play above....where the foul by B1 didn't affect A1's original path in any way.

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......

Are you sure you'll be going to call B1's foul in this case? Won't it be a contact which has no real influence on the play? In the case you are talking about, the charge is unavoidable, isn't it?

I'm not saying an official mustn't call it, but just that it's important to think about calling it.

Ciao

1) B1 fouled the shooter. How do you <b>ever</b> know that the contact had no real influence on the play? And if a player puts a shooter into the third row, does that still have no real influence on the play if the shooter makes the basket? You can also foul an airborne shooter and never move them from their path. You can hit a wrist or elbow and knock the ball loose or make the shooter miss the shot, and that won't cause the airborne shooter to come down in any different spot than the one he was originally going to come down in. And there was already a defender with LGP in that spot?

2) Yes. And the defender was there before the shooter left his feet and never moved. And the defender with legal guarding position then gets knocked down and put into the third row by the charge.

Juggling Referee originally said that there shouldn't be a foul called on a shooter who was knocked off balance or into a defender. I agree with that fully. So did you and JRut. Juggler was talking about <b>two</b> different situations though. This situation refers to the play where the airborne shooter is definitely fouled but his path isn't changed one bet. He said that he wouldn't call a foul in the first situation, but he would in this situation. I'm just wondering if you and Jeff are still arguing about the <b>first</b> situation instead of the second.

Situation: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting by B1 and makes contact with B2 who was in LGP.

It seems that we agree that, if the shooter is set off balance by the foul, then the second contact should be ignored.

Now let's concentrate on the dubious case: the foul by B1 doesn't change in a sensible way A1's path and doesn't put A1 off balance.

I say that we should think before calling B1's foul and the charge by A1. I would be much more inclined to call only the charge and wave off the basket. Assuming, of course that the contact between A1 and B2 is substantial (for example, but not only, when B2 is knocked down). Such a situation seems more likely when the two contacts are almost simultaneous: in case of doubt on which happens first, I'd rather go with the charge.

I'm not saying we should ignore B1's contact in every situation like this, nor I'm saying to ignore contact on a shooter who is able to score anyway. I'm saying we must be careful and call the foul (and I admit that at the end, in very special situations, it can be "the fouls").

It should definitely not be "different calls by two officials", do you agree?

Ciao

Call the foul on the shooter.............ignore any foul after this unless it is intentional or flagrant.

1) So.....if B1 hit the shooter across the wrists on the way up, and knocked the ball loose, you'd be inclined to completely ignore that? Remember, the basket didn't go in <b>because</b> of the foul.

2) And neither was Juggling Referee saying to ignore the contact either. He said <i>verbatim</i>--"If A1 is pushed into B1, <b>DON'T</b> call the foul, but if there's a hack on the arm while A1 is going up and A1 charges right into B1, you should call it." Didn't you just basically kind of agree with him on both <b>different</b> situations?

That was my point. You've got two completely different situations being discussed here. One situation where the defensive foul pushes or directs the shooter into another defender, and another situation where the defensive foul doesn't alter the path of the airborne shooter at all before the shooter wipes out a different defender. The defensive foul in the second situation may cause the shot to miss though, or it might even stop the shot from getting off. Juggling Referee stated that they should be called different ways.

What does intentional or flagrant really have to do with it if the ball is still live?

Am I reading you right? You're saying that the airborne shooter can run over a defender with LGP? Knock the defender down and put them into the third row? Under all circumstances? And you'd ignore that?

If so, I disagree.

You'd wave off the basket anyway, wouldn't you? Unless the ball leaves the shooter's hands before the charge, a rare case in situations which are in turn not very common. I believe there is no way B1 can foul A1, in such a way that A1 is not able to shoot, without setting A1 off balance.

I hope to have made clear my opinion.

Again, I'm not saying to ignore a foul: just call the real foul, be it on A1 or B1. Or on both, if there is no other choice.

Ciao

No, if he or she was knocked into the third row, then that would fall under flagrant and should be called but if A1 is fouled on the way up and the other contact is strictly momentum, I would only call the shooting foul. I respect any other opion and I would also say calling a false double foul would not be wrong either.

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

How is this different from any call we make? :D

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

Didn't you just say two completely <b>different</b> things here?:confused:

You're stating that calling a false double foul is wrong, but calling a false double foul isn't wrong.

Momentum really can't be a factor. Once he leaves his feet, the shooter's momentum isn't going to be altered that much. The <b>path</b> of his momentum might be altered though.

I was wrong. We don't agree then.

I can live with that. It is not going to change my position or my thoughts on this. ;)

Peace

JRut and Jurassic disagreeing on something. Who would have thunk it? :p