Double Foul: True or False?

[mbyron]

I had a BJV game Friday that had an ugly moment in it. We're down by A's basket in the second quarter, and partner passes on a push by A1. Shot goes up, and A1 pushes B1 again, harder, under the basket (and in my primary). As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1, which he fails to land (A1 has backed away).

I ended up calling a double foul, but as I think about it, I probably should have called an unsporting T on B1 for the punch (attempt). I also realize that the punch attempt qualifies as fighting, and the T could have been flagrant. My judgment was (and remains) that the situation didn't warrant the flagrant T; if it makes any difference, I didn't have any problem with either of these two for the rest of the game.

Questions:
1. What would you have called?
2. If I had called the T on B1 after the foul on A1, how would that be administered? That would have been a false double foul, correct?
3. What do you think about calling a flagrant T in this situation? In general?

[bob jenkins]

From you description, the players clearly did not foul each other at the same time. So, I wouldn't have a double foul.

If the "half-hearted punch" was with a closed fist, then I think you have to get it. If it was more of a push / shove, then I think you address it verbally, without a foul.

[jdw3018]

I agree with what Bob said, with the possible exception that if the "punch" was more of a push, you could certainly call it an unsporting tech. If it wa a punch, however, you have to go with the flagrant T.

Either way, if the action by B1 was during a dead ball (can't tell if the try was still in flight in the OP) then it can only be a technical foul. If the ball was still live, then it would either be a common foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Questions:
1. What would you have called?
2. If I had called the T on B1 after the foul on A1, how would that be administered? That would have been a false double foul, correct?
3. What do you think about calling a flagrant T in this situation? In general?

1. Personal foul on A1 and a technical foul on B1. That is your only option since B1 did NOT make contact with the opponent.

Because of that fact, whether the ball is live or dead doesn't have anything to do with this play. What jdw wrote is incorrect.

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If the ball was still live, then it would either be a common foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant foul.

2. Administer any FTs warranted to B1 due to the bonus with the lane cleared, then administer 2FTs to any member of Team A plus award the ball OOB at the division line to Team A. Yep, FDF and is administered in the order of occurence.

3. Strongly consider it.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Personal foul on A1 and a technical foul on B1. That is your only option since B1 did NOT make contact with the opponent.

Because of that fact, whether the ball is live or dead doesn't have anything to do with this play. What jdw wrote is incorrect.

Thanks for the correction, Nevada - wasn't even thinking about the fact that no contact was made...

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Personal foul on A1 and a technical foul on B1. That is your only option since B1 did NOT make contact with the opponent.

Wrong.

Throwing a punch is fighting, regardless of whether there's contact or not.

I have a personal foul on A1 and a flagrant technical foul for B1, along with an ejection and 4 game suspension under state association rules.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

WRONG.

Throwing a punch is fighting, regardless of whether there's contact or not.

I have a personal foul on A1 and a flagrant technical foul for B1, along with an ejection and 4 game suspension under state association rules.

I'm pretty sure Nevada was simply responding to the OP and my posts which gave options for common, intentional or flagrant fouls if the ball was live. Since there was no contact, however, those aren't options and a technical foul is the only option.

Now, it could be a flagrant technical, but it's still a technical. Notice he said in point 3 of his post that he's strongly consider it.

[BktBallRef]

Throwing a punch is a flagrant technical foul. There is no other option.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Wrong.

Throwing a punch is fighting, regardless of whether there's contact or not.

I have a personal foul on A1 and a flagrant technical foul for B1, along with an ejection and 4 game suspension under state association rules.

Huh? What's "Wrong" with my response? I just pointed out to jdw that the foul by B1 could not be a personal foul, but instead must be technical.
I wrote the same fouls as you did, except without the word "flagrant" in front of technical because I believe that is for the official on the court to decide. He is the only one who can judge whether or not the act was flagrant. I wasn't there and thus can't say. I can only offer to "strongly consider it" as I wrote in my previous post.

But if you want to take an attitude about it, I can quote the OP.

Originally Posted by mbyron

My judgment was (and remains) that the situation didn't warrant the flagrant T...

I guess that makes you the one who is "wrong."

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Huh? What's "Wrong" with my response? I just pointed out to jdw that the foul by B1 could not be a personal foul, but instead must be technical.
I wrote the same fouls as you did, except without the word "flagrant" in front of technical because I believe that is for the official on the court to decide. He is the only one who can judge whether or not the act was flagrant. I wasn't there and thus can't say. I can only offer to "strongly consider it" as I wrote in my previous post.

But if you want to take an attitude about it, I can quote the OP.


I guess that makes you the one who is "wrong."

As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1,

That makes you and the OP both wrong.

A punch thrown is fighting, period.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Huh? What's "Wrong" with my response? I just pointed out to jdw that the foul by B1 could not be a personal foul, but instead must be technical.
I wrote the same fouls as you did, except without the word "flagrant" in front of technical because I believe that is for the official on the court to decide. He is the only one who can judge whether or not the act was flagrant. I wasn't there and thus can't say. I can only offer to "strongly consider it" as I wrote in my previous post.

What's wrong with your post is that a punch was thrown and you said the only option is a technical foul. No, the only option when a punch is thrown is a flagrant technical foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps your single hair is in your eyes. I never said that a punch wasn't fighting. I merely said that I can't state whether or not the act was fighting because I wasn't there. So I said that the official should strongly consider a flagrant. However, what one offical judges to be a punch another may deem to be merely a shove. Is a half punch fighting or does it have to be a full punch?

Whether it's a "half hearted punch" or a haymaker, it's a punch. He chose the word "punch," not me. If it's a punch, it's a flagrant T.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had a BJV game Friday that had an ugly moment in it. We're down by A's basket in the second quarter, and partner passes on a push by A1. Shot goes up, and A1 pushes B1 again, harder, under the basket (and in my primary). As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1, which he fails to land (A1 has backed away).

I ended up calling a double foul, but as I think about it, I probably should have called an unsporting T on B1 for the punch (attempt). I also realize that the punch attempt qualifies as fighting, and the T could have been flagrant. My judgment was (and remains) that the situation didn't warrant the flagrant T; if it makes any difference, I didn't have any problem with either of these two for the rest of the game.

Questions:
1. What would you have called?
2. If I had called the T on B1 after the foul on A1, how would that be administered? That would have been a false double foul, correct?
3. What do you think about calling a flagrant T in this situation? In general?

False double. Personal foul and a flagrant technical foul for the punch.

Administer in the order they were committed.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

False double. Personal foul and a flagrant technical foul for the punch.

Administer in the order they were committed.

There you go simplifying things again...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had a BJV game Friday that had an ugly moment in it. We're down by A's basket in the second quarter, and partner passes on a push by A1. Shot goes up, and A1 pushes B1 again, harder, under the basket (and in my primary). As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1, which he fails to land (A1 has backed away).

I ended up calling a double foul, but as I think about it, I probably should have called an unsporting T on B1 for the punch (attempt). I also realize that the punch attempt qualifies as fighting, and the T could have been flagrant. My judgment was (and remains) that the situation didn't warrant the flagrant T; if it makes any difference, I didn't have any problem with either of these two for the rest of the game.

Questions:
1. What would you have called?
2. If I had called the T on B1 after the foul on A1, how would that be administered? That would have been a false double foul, correct?
3. What do you think about calling a flagrant T in this situation? In general?

I'd have to see it, but either it was a punch or it wasn't. If it was a punch, it's a flagrant. NFHS wants zero tolerance on this stuff. If it wasn't a punch, an unsporting tech would be the way to go.

Obviously, a double foul isn't the way to go.