False Multiple ??
 

I think that most of us would agree that fouls during a dead ball are ignored unless they are intentional, or flagrant.

Boys varsity game this week. White team down by about ten with a few minutes to go. White team is trying to foul Red team to stop clock. Red team is doing a good job at playing "keep away". White player reaches in and slaps Red player on the arm. As I'm putting some air into the whistle to call a common foul, the White player grabs the jersey of the Red player, who he has already fouled, but Red is about to get by the White player, thus the jersey grab. The sound of my whistle and the jersey grab happen at the same time.

Do I just call the common foul, and ignore the jersey grab?

Do I only call the intentional foul for the jersey grab, and forget about the common foul?

Do I call both the common foul, and the intentional foul?

Two types of answers please, common sense (spirit, intent, advantage, disadvantage) answers, and rule book answers, with citations, please.

You make it sound like those are mutually exclusive.

Test ?
 

They sometimes are. It depends on whether you're taking a written test, or officiating a sixth grade middle school game.

just call the common foul, and ignore the jersey grab?

I'd just call the common foul. Also a quick word to the White player about the limits of his strategy.

I'm going to share some words of wisdom, given to me over a decade ago. If you have never seen it happen before. Do not let it happen here tonight. AND don't call anything taking 2 paragraphs to explain. Hope this helps.

Two paragraphs to explain to whom?:confused:

If I've never seen it(whatever "it" is) happen before, I still have to call it according to the rules. I can't just forget about it because I might have to explain it. You can't just ignore something because it doesn't happen very often.That's patently ridiculous.

Here's some better words of wisdom for you imo. Just call the game without worrying about anything, including explanations.

More To It ...
 

I apologize to the Forum members who have read this, or posted a comment on it. Now that I have re-read the original post, I don't think that I gave enough information:

The foul by White player was the usual, simple, attempt to stop the clock, and the foul, or fouls, was one motion, from the forearm, to the jersey, in just a few milliseconds. During my reaction time to observe the first foul, and blow the whistle, the second foul occurrred immediatlely after the first, appearing as one foul. Keep in mind that everyone in the gym saw the jersey grab as the Red player started a move to the basket.

By the way, I only called an intentional foul, for the jersey grab, which the White coach didn't have a major problem with, other than asking my partner why it was intentional.

Here's what came to my mind after the game:

Let's say that I stick with my original call, at least in my brain, a common foul. The Red coach asks, "What about the jersey grab being intentional?". I can't reply that a foul during a dead ball must be flagrant or intentional, because it was intentional. What's my answer to him?

By the book, I believe that this should be a common foul, followed by an intentional technical foul. But I've never seeen this called before, and it seems overly officious.

Going with the intentional foul only seems to me like the best way. The Red coach is happy because his team gets two shots, and the ball. The White coach is happy because his team, and his player, wasn't charged with two fouls, the common, and the intentional, which would have taken some explaining for this overly officious call. The only problem that I have with the one intentional foul is that it's a lie. I originally put air in my whistle for the common foul, and ended up reporting an intentional foul.

Again, please keep in mind that the foul, or fouls, was only one motion that only took a few milliseconds, and that everybody in the gyn saw the jersey grab.

Comments ???

Too much mention of keeping people happy. A simple grab of the jersey after the ball is dead is easy to ignore.

Ignore Intentional Or Flagrant ??
 

Please keep in mind that the ball was dead because of the common foul, not because I blew my whistle. What about the general rule that fouls during dead balls should be ignored unless they're flagrant, or intentional. No one in the gym had a problem understanding that a player's jersey being grabbed, when he is about to beat his man to the basket, especially during the last few minutes of a game, in which one team is trying to foul, was a simple intentional foul. So, if no one had a problem with this being called an intentional foul, how, according to the rules, can it be ignored?

The player in this situation was not about to beat his man anywhere. That's why you don't make this call. I don't think the intent of the note in 4-19-1 was to make a call in this situation. Part of the definition of intentional foul includes the phrase "not based solely on the severity of the act." This says to me that the severity of the act is a factor. If the defender simply grabs the jersey, then immediately releases, forget it. Look at it this way. At any point in the game after a foul is called the defender may grab his opponent, to hold him up, to pat him on the back, or whatever. The grab, while intentionally done, in and of itself, need not be a foul.

Similar Question
 

Game I was watching from the bleachers Friday night, NCAA rules. A1 is driving on a fast break, B1 who has hustled in front of A1 attempts a block. A1 and B1 are in the air as is B2 who is trying a block from behind A1. Whistle blows for foul on B1 and then B2 nails A1 just after he releases the ball for a try. Doesn't this warrant a multiple foul? or does that call exist anymore?

If A1 was still airborne then by rule it is a multiple foul. I personally, would never call it.

Agree, But ...
 

I agree, but, in this case, the purpose of White player was to foul the Red player to stop the clock. If it were a hold, a block, or illegal use of hands, unless extra hard, it would probalby have been a common foul. In these situations, a hard two-hand push from behind, a bear hug, or a grab of the jersey, are often called, with little disagreement from coaches, intentional fouls.

Again, even though I could call, by the book, two fouls, I'm only calling one, in most cases the intentional foul. The only person in the gym who knows for sure that there was a common foul before the intenrtional foul was me, and I'm not telling anyone. This seems to fit my interpretation of the spirit and intent of the rules. It's too bad that there is nothing, other than spirit and intent, in the rule book to back me up.

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.

Don't Strongly Disagree With You, But ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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?