Simultaneous Common and Intentional

[Adam]

In order to "offset," it has to be a double foul. I suppose it's possible to have a double foul involving an intentional and a standard personal, but I can't imagine it.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In order to "offset," it has to be a double foul.

not only a double foul, "offset" would also be on a simultaneous foul (7.5.3.b)

I suppose it's possible to have a double foul involving an intentional and a standard personal, but I can't imagine it.

if the whistles/fouls occurred at approximately the same time in this case, then here is your example of an intentional and "standard personal" occurring at the same time, in which case there would be no ft's and you would go POI(as JR correctly states)....if the intentional followed the personal, then it would be a technical b/c the ball would be dead...in this case you would penalize each in order (shoot all ft's) and put the ball in play at division line opposite...

[kbilla]

sorry got my response partially caught up in your quote...what i was saying is that offsetting fouls (and POI) applies to both double AND simultaneous fouls (7.5.3.b)

[Adam]

Well now, I'll need to check my books when I get home.

Thanks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In order to "offset," it has to be a double foul. I suppose it's possible to have a double foul involving an intentional and a standard personal, but I can't imagine it.

If you had a double technical foul composed of an ordinary "T" and a flagrant "T", would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?
Same question for a simultaneous technical foul consisting of a regular ol' "T" and a flagrant "T"......would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?

[Adam]

I could speculate and pontificate all day long, but until I check my rule book it's uninformed opinion.

My first thought, however, is that the "penalties" don't offset. Only the free throws "offset."

Again, I need to look at the book this evening after I go out and get my son's hair cut (it was either that or get him a shirt that says, "D@mmit, I'm a boy and my dad gets pi$$ed when you call me a girl!") and buy a television.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I guess I don't have anything to give here. I don't see anything that tells positively either way. Looking through the book, it's a little iffy, seems to me. You're saying (from this q and from your previous post) that an intentional personal and a common personal foul are equal, and off-set? I'd disagree with that, but I'd go with it if I could see it clearly in the book, but I don't. Although I don't see anything that would disagree with it, either.

4-19-10 gives us the fact that this is a simultaneous personal foul. (Remember, intentional and flagrant are just modifiers of personal or technical.)

The penalty section 1(d) gives us the fact that we don't give FTs for a simultaneous personal foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you had a double technical foul composed of an ordinary "T" and a flagrant "T", would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?
Same question for a simultaneous technical foul consisting of a regular ol' "T" and a flagrant "T"......would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?

Well, I wouldn't if it were my choice, but I think your point is that the Fed wants us to. Okay, I can live with that, although I wish it were spelled out more clearly in the book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well, I wouldn't if it were my choice, but I think your point is that the Fed wants us to. Okay, I can live with that, although I wish it were spelled out more clearly in the book.

Juulie, you use what you have. It's clear enough, as per Mark Dexter's post. You can't read anything additional into it that isn't there.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Juulie, you use what you have. It's clear enough, as per Mark Dexter's post. You can't read anything additional into it that isn't there.

I'm not saying your wrong. It's just that your interp (which I'm sure is correct) isn't intuitively obvious to me. Clear to you? Fine, but not clear at all to me.

I'm not reading anything in. I'm trying NOT to read anything in. All I'm saying is, I don't get this interp from this set of readings. And this isn't the way I'd do it if I had the choice. But I will do it this way forever from now on. If it ever happens to me. Which it probably won't now that I've got it right.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm not saying your wrong.

cough cough

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm not saying your wrong.

Oh, my.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

cough cough

You're supposed to wait until she says, "turn your head," before coughing.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're supposed to wait until she says, "turn your head," before coughing.

As someone who has worked with Juulie, my comment on this is: "No comment".

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm not saying your wrong.

I'm overnighting you some apostrophes. I'm guessing there must be some kind of regional shortage?