Simultaneous Common and Intentional
 

I had this situation last week in girls 6th grade league. Both teams are in bonus. My partner calls a foul on B1 on a rebound attempt. As my partner is whistling, I see A2 push B2 with both hands in the back away from the play. I called intentional foul on A2. We had A1 shoot 1 and 1, then B2 shoot 2 at the other end. Then we gave ball to team B at centerline opposite table. Was this right?

What if it was not called intentional, and therefore called a double foul? No shots and POI, which would have been AP?

What if it was "more" after my partner called his foul, and I considererd it a dead ball hence a T on A2? I think this situation would need to be administered the way we administered it. Right?

You got the administration almost correct, but it's not a simultaneous foul, because the fouls are of unequal "intensity". I'd call it a false simultaneous in my head, but not out loud. After all the shots, the ball does not go into play at the centerline, but nearest the spot of the intentional foul.

It wouldn't be a double foul. Ever. That's because the fouls weren't committed by opponents against each other. But you would have the penalty part correct.

Right, in this case, the ball would go into play at the division line.

If the 2nd foul was an intentional, you should have put the ball in play at the spot nearest that foul.

Had it been a technical, what you did would have been correct.

And rainmaker is right, this is a false double all the way no matter what kind of fouls you call on A2.

Wait a minute, I didn't say it would be a false double, only that it wouldn't be double. It couldn't be a false double, could it?

Sounds like a false double foul to me. The second one occured before the clock started following the first. But don't get hung up on the terminology. Just assess them in order and all is well. :)

I vote false double. :D

Yea, I figured that out a long time ago. Doesn't matter what the verbiage is.

You were right. Your partner's whistle made the ball dead, so the first foul was a personal, the second a technical (intentional or flagrant contact during a dead ball). You cannot "combine" them. Administer them separately in the order in which they occurred.

What wasn't clear to me was whether or not they were judged to have been simultaneous or if his partner's call was clearly first...that would make the difference of whether or not this was a T or just an intentional foul (ball live vs. dead)....only affects the inbounds (and whether or not the kid gets their first T), other than that the administration was correct...

It also affects who is allowed to shoot the free throws.

of course and that is actually a good point in this case. if they forced the kid who was fouled to shoot the ft's then you are making the assertion that it was an intentional foul (non-technical), so you would have the throw-in at the nearest spot...if you went opposite table on the throw-in then you must have been asserting that it was a technical foul (unless that WAS the nearest spot which it doesn't sound like it was), in which case you should have asked for a shooter...

If both fouls occurred at approximately the same time, you would have simultaneous personal fouls. If so, it doesn't matter whether one of the fouls was intentional or not. There's no FT's and you go to the POI. Rules 4-19-10, 7-5-3(b), 10-6PENALTIES1(d) and 4-36. As it's on a rebound attempt, the POI is an AP(rule 4-36-2(c).

If you rule that the fouls didn't occur at approximately the same time, you have a false double foul and you penalize the fouls in the order that you called them. In this case, you would have a personal foul, followed by an intentional technical foul.

Rules citation?

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. :confused:

I think JR is right on here, I just followed down the path I was lead...7.5.3 doesn't differentiate between what type of foul occurred, it just says that if it is a simultaneous foul then you go to POI...fouls are either personal or technical (with a subset of each), if you have either simultaneous personal fouls or simultaneous technical fouls you go POI...you can't have a simultaneous personal/technical foul so no need to worry there....

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 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...

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)

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

Thanks.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, my.

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". :p

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