It should have been a live ball double foul not a T. The thrower had the ball......................just joking. :D

Peace

Why aren't you calling this crew "rulebook officials"?

That may actually be true. I can't tell from the camera angle.

This is a pretty entertaining thread. :D

I can totally understand the official not wanted to call this an intentional T. If the action began while the ball was live, it is a good call. The rule in this case is one that many officials would be reluctant to call. Additionally, I would only make this call if was clear that it occured during a dead ball.

IMO, most of the time double fouls are cop outs. With the exception of double Ts where players are talking back and forth, one player probably made contact first.

I am sure they were concentrating mainly on the contact, not trying to absolutely to make sure the ball was live or dead and making a big deal out of it. Most of us do not get a video replay when we make calls. And that was the point I was making from the beginning and apparently you missed the sarcasm. ;)

Peace

Right or wrong, officials at the highest levels have learned to not complicate their lives. Back to the original post on this thread. There is no way that Scott Thornley is going to call a dead ball foul on that play unless it's obvious to everyone in the gym that the contact started and ended well after the shot.

The first time I worked a men's CC scrimmage, a three-point shot was taken in front of me. After the shooter (A1) landed, B1 ran into him. The 3-pointer went in. I counted the hoop and gave the ball to team A for a throw-in (we were not in bonus).

After the game, the CC assignor told me this. "You were correct by rule, but you really complicated that play. If you can get away with it, just count the hoop and give A1 a free throw next time."

In a high school game, I may still do it by the book. For me to be successful at the college level, I do it a little different. That's just the way it is.

Now you have me confused. Double fouls have always been defined as occurring at <b>approximately</b> the same time, not at <b>exactly</b> the same time. Anything that I've ever read or anybody that I've ever talked to has never brought up the concept of something having to occur "first". It always seemed to be understood that contact followed by <b>immediate</b> retaliation(as in 2 players jockeying for position in the post) was a double foul, no matter who initiated the contact. Are they teaching that concept differently now?

In my experience, most double fouls are called to clean up post play or off-ball contact, or to send a message to 2 players to knock their crap off. And in everyone one of them, one of the players made the first contact. Do you regard those as cop-outs too, Tom?

Yes they are. The last few years especially in the college ranks it has been taught to get the first foul and not penalize the retaliation.

I cannot speak for Tom, but that is an old way of thinking (at the college level mainly). And in my experience in the past 5 or 6 years at the HS level, double fouls are not considered to be good fouls. A lot of that might be a college influence, but those days seem to be over as a widely accepted practice.

Peace

Just to refine that thought a little bit, they say to get the first foul so that there IS NO retaliation. If you call the first foul immediately, the action stops, and we avoid getting the second one.

Cool, but if you <b>don't</b> get the first foul before retaliation, or if you do get the first foul and there is an <b>immediate</b> retaliation, are both you and Jeff telling me that the correct way to call the play is not a double foul but a personal foul followed by a technical foul for the <b>immediate</b> retaliation? Iow, if you got 2 big 'uns bumping in the hole, you blow your whistle on the first bump and an immediate bump back is either a "T" or ignored, no matter how physical it is?

Note that I said it was used to clean up post play or send a message. Are you saying that's not a widely accepted practice everywhere, or it is not a widely accepted practice in Illinois?

Most of what I am saying comes from official well out of Illinois. Actually most of the camps I have attended the last couple of years were from people that did not live in Illinois at all. I agree that this was once the common philosophy, but that has changed. Now they want you to get the first foul and this has been said by Hank Nichols on the NCAA tapes on a yearly basis.

Peace

But if you do get the first foul, do you now ignore the second foul, no matter how hard the contact is? Or if you do call the second foul, do you call it a T?

I'm talking about what used to be the usual situations where double fouls were called--players banging in the post or wrestling off ball. That's what I'm trying to find out.

Actually I was involved in about 3 situations during camps where we called a foul, then a T following. And you only call the T if the action is intentional or flagrant. The evaluators loved the calls in each situation this past summer. And each situation took place with different evaluators on each game.

I understand what you are asking because that is what I was told when I first started. For whatever reason that philosophy has seemed to change in my HS area and the college supervisors camps that I attended seem to take a similar position. And I think the way Tommy talked about this situation is becoming more and more accepted as a "cop out." And as someone else said, if you get the first one, you will likely stop the retaliation from even taking place. If you penalize both you are likely penalizing the guy that was wrong first and in many minds, that is not the right thing to do. I can tell you that is what John Adams told me personally (and my crew of course) when I attended his camp a few years ago for the first time. John is now the National Coordinator after this year. I am sure that philosophy will continue.

Peace