Thinking about an "almost" simultaneous foul last season

[zebraman]

Nevadaref,

The C was felt that he could see some of the action in the corner through the foul that he called and he felt that his happened first. It was very, very close. In my long and mediocre career, I have never called a simultaneous foul or a multiple foul and was just curious if others would have. A college assignors that I used to work for would NEVER want a simultaneous foul in that sitch and I was just curious on other opinions, that's all.

[Nevadaref]

So the "college" assignor mentality is to give one player a free shot at another kid? That's a good way to get one player to feel that he isn't being properly protected and that leads to retaliation and fights. I guess I don't agree with Mr. College Assignor.

It sounds from your description that the contact against the player who just took the shot was severe enough that it shouldn't be ignored. Hence your decision to call a foul in the first place.
So what we have is a play in which the timing is very close and a player who clearly got whacked. For game control, I think that you are better off not splitting hairs or even thinking about calling an intentional foul, but simply penalizing both kids by going with the simultaneous foul. Afterall, it clearly qualifies as the two fouls did occur "at approximately the same time."

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So the "college" assignor mentality is to give one player a free shot at another kid? That's a good way to get one player to feel that he isn't being properly protected and that leads to retaliation and fights. I guess I don't agree with Mr. College Assignor.

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Simultaneous fouls mean they happen at the same time. Unless one of the 2 players can predict the future (there will be a foul by an opponent and his own foul will be ignored) no one is getting a free shot at anything.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Simultaneous fouls mean they happen at APPROXIMATELY the same time. Unless one of the 2 players can predict the future (there will be a foul by an opponent and his own foul will be ignored) no one is getting a free shot at anything.

Fixed it for you, and that's according to the rules book. Hope it makes sense to you now.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fixed it for you, and that's according to the rules book. Hope it makes sense to you now.

Maybe, but adding "approximately" doesn't affect his point.

[Nevadaref]

Well, Adam, you haven't yet stated how you think that it should be handled. So how about it?

[Adam]

I see no reason not to go with both fouls here.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fixed it for you, and that's according to the rules book. Hope it makes sense to you now.

Still makes no sense, unless one of the players can predict the future.

[rainmaker]

I used the simultaneous foul once when we really weren't sure which foul was first, and we were trying to crack down on a lot of really sloppy hacking and pushing. The good part was that neither coach had a clue what was going on, but they both had been fouled and done the fouling so they both shut up. Still, if there's any way to avoid the "simultaneous" thing, I think it's better. JMO.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The good part was that neither coach had a clue what was going on, but they both had been fouled

Juulie - someone fouled the coaches? COOL! Was it you? That would be even COOLER! Do you have video? Was it the guy from Molalla? Hope so.