False Multiple ??

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bigwhistle

Call a common foul and keep the game moving. If Team B is trying to foul and didn't hear a whistle on the first slap, he was trying again to get the clock stopped by the subsequent hold. This is why officials need to be aware of the game and the situations at hand. If you let the "ticky-tack" foul go here (which is apparently what the defensive player thought had happened), he will make contact again with a force that makes it harder to ignore. CALL THE FIRST FOUL!!!! Both coaches want it and understand it. This is good game management.

I don't strongly disagree with you but, how about the NFHS rule that we don't ignore fouls during a dead ball if they're flagrant, or intentional, which the jersey grab was, by many Forum members', and NFHS, definitions.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't strongly disagree with you but, how about the NFHS rule that we don't ignore fouls during a dead ball if they're flagrant, or intentional, which the jersey grab was, by many Forum members', and NFHS, definitions.

Quite possibly, this jersey grab was not a foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional.

A1 fouls B1. The ball is dead. A1 grabs B1's jersey, then quickly releases it. No position was neutralized. The clock was not affected. The grab is not a foul.

[Back In The Saddle]

Kudos to you for not calling two fouls on one player during one play. I do not think that is the intent nor purpose of the rules.

If you look at the really weirdo, exotic foul types defined -- double, simultaneous, multiple -- they all have one thing in common. They allow penalizing multiple players for fouls committed at the same time. Multiple people screw up all at the same time, and they all get dinged once for it. But in all this madness there is no foul type defined that allows us to ding a player more than once for serial fouls committed against a single opponent on a single play, no matter how many individual contacts occur. And with all the wierdo foul types that already exist, don't you think they would have a "serial foul" type if that was their intent?

Allowance for intentional and flagrant fouls during a dead ball is, IMHO, reserved for additional, only casually related, behaviors that must be addressed. An example is the kid who gets fouled, then retaliates by shoving the kid who fouled him. A common foul followed by an intentional technical.

In the OP, the fouler was not even aware that the official had deemed the first contact to be a foul. The second act was merely "making sure". And I think it's only the fact that the first is a common foul and the second an intentional foul that causes any confusion at all.

What would have happened if the first foul had been followed by a second common foul? Would you have called the first one? The second? You couldn't call them both; you'd pick one and call it and ignore the other. What if the first foul had been the jersey grab, followed by a bear hug when no whistle was immediately forthcoming? Would you call an intentional personal followed by an intentional technical? No. You'd pick one of the two intentional fouls, call it, and ignore the other.

So why even consider calling a common, followed by an intentional technical simply because the two fouls that were committed were of differing varieties? That is not the intent of the rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't strongly disagree with you but, how about the NFHS rule that we don't ignore fouls during a dead ball if they're flagrant, or intentional, which the jersey grab was, by many Forum members', and NFHS, definitions.

No, it wasn't an intentional foul. It *would have been* an intentional foul if the ball was still live for "neutralizing an obvious advantageous position." Since the ball was dead, there was no "advantageous position" to neutralize.

[jdw3018]

Two fouls = bad. Same principle that you wouldn't call two fouls on a player who commits a blocking foul followed by illegal use of the hands on the same play.

I probably just have the common foul. I had almost this exact play earlier in the year where a "hack" across an arm turned into a "hug" as the play stopped. My whistle was after the hack but simultaneous with the hug. I had the first contact, but because it continued into a wrap up I called the intentional. Looking back, I don't think I should have. It's the one play all year that keeps popping up in my mind.

As far as ignoring dead ball contact unless it's intentional or flagrant, if this "jersey grab" had taken place as players were getting set for an inbounds play prior to the ball being handed to the thrower, would you have called an intentional foul?