double foul?

[Adam]

Wouldn't there be circumstances, maybe early in the game on a real solid shove by A2, that we might want to get this one, too?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

If you are asking me personally, I would tell my partner that we are going with the first foul and only that foul.

Not everything in officiating should be handled by technicalities -- and when we do, we normally get ourselves in more trouble than we would by administering a good dose of common sense.

I take it that there's no blarges in any of your games either.

Almost the same play, but the airborne shooter A1 after being fouled by B1 then charges into B2(with LGP) and puts B2 into the third row. Are you going with the first foul under those circumstances too?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

I am starting to remember that there's a reason that I only have a few hundred posts on this board

Ya gotta remember that we're just discussing what should be done by rule after the play has already been called.

Real life and the rulebook don't always go together.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think this is close. But,

1) It's a false simultaneous foul, not a false double foul, since the fould were not by opponents against each other.

2) If the last FT is good, B gets to run the baseline; if it's not good, B has a spot throw-in.

3) If B is in the bonus, then B shoots FTs with players lined up on the lane.

Bob, something didn't quite ring right with the term "false simultaneous foul" and I searched the NF rulebook and the term doesn't come up at all...is this an actual term or are you just extrapolating the "false double foul" definition?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Brad

Technically you are right, but calling two fouls here is, in general, horrendous.

Call the first foul -- the second foul has absolutely no effect on the play.

This is where common-sense trumps rules technicalities every day of the week.

The second foul may not have had an effect but it may have already been in progress when the first whistle was blow....and have been "rough play" as two big guys were fighting for the anticipated rebounding position. You may want to get it just to clean up the game. Sure, you may want to ignore something like an illegal screen on the opposite site of the court....but I would never say that the 2nd foul should always be ignored.

In my game Saturday, I had TWO fouls on the defense for fouling a teammate of the shooter when the ball went in. Normally, those don't get called.

First one....defender two hand shoves the screener as the shooter releases a three from the corner. Screener, who was just inside the 3 point line, ends up on the floor OOB (several feet back from where he set the screen) as a result of the shove. The basket was good AND the shooting team got the ball back. Not normally recommended but unpassable. Can't let anyone think they can get away with a shove like that...just not happening.

Second one...shots is rolling on the rim, defender (in a less favorable rebounding position) throws a hard elbow into the back of a teammate of the shooter. It was ugly. The ball dropped in. I could have passed, but what was going to happen next trip, or at the other end? It was getting rougher than I wanted it to get.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kbilla

Bob, something didn't quite ring right with the term "false simultaneous foul" and I searched the NF rulebook and the term doesn't come up at all...is this an actual term or are you just extrapolating the "false double foul" definition?

4-19-15.

It's written in white ink on a white page and basically says "If you'd get your head out of your ***, you'd see that 4-19-9 applies."

[ColeTops25]

Originally Posted by Brad

If you are asking me personally, I would tell my partner that we are going with the first foul and only that foul.

What gives YOU the authority to do that? What gives YOU the authority to turn a blind eye to your partner's foul? I'll bet that makes for good chemistry throughout the remainder of the game

Not everything in officiating should be handled by technicalities -- and when we do, we normally get ourselves in more trouble than we would by administering a good dose of common sense.

How is this a "technicality?" If I call a foul, it's because I've got a foul. Just because it's more difficult to think about the end result and actually sort the play out, doesn't mean it's a passable "technicality."

I am starting to remember that there's a reason that I only have a few hundred posts on this board

I read this board daily. I like to take bits and pieces from the discussion and I generally learn something new daily. I do agree that many posters become to worried about the plays that are very rare, and the "what if" scenarios. But, I think your way off base on this one. The OP is a legitimate question. You can't apply the rules when it is convienent for you.