Simultaneous Common and Intentional

[KCRef]

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?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by KCRef

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?

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.

Originally Posted by KCRef

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

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.

Originally Posted by KCRef

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?

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You got the administration almost correct, but it's not a simultaneous foul, because the fouls are of unequal "intensity".

Rules citation?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

You got the administration almost correct, but it's not a simultaneous foul, because the fouls are of unequal "intensity".

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[kbilla]

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.

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....

[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...

[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?

[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.

[Adam]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

[JugglingReferee]

I vote false double.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Just assess them in order and all is well.

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

[Mark Padgett]

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.