Referee Magazine false double foul - April issue
 

Page 54 of my most recent Referee Magazine.

A23 drives the lane and is fouled by B24 while attempting a layup. The ball enters the basket and A23 then collides with B55 who is in a legal guarding position (a) just before, or (b) just after returning to the floor.

Ruling: False double foul. Penalize both fouls in both cases.

I have never ever, ever, seen anyone call this at any level. I have only seen the first foul penalized. Have you?

So because you haven't ever seen it, you think that the ruling is wrong?
It's definitely in the case book.

FALSE DOUBLE FOUL
4.19.9 SITUATION A: A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A's basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-5)

For the record, if the ball has PASSED THROUGH the goal before the contact in part (b), then that contact should be ignored unless deemed intentional or flagrant. If the ball is still in the goal at the time of the contact, then a foul could be called, but it wouldn't be a PC foul and wouldn't cancel the basket as the second foul in part (a) would. Therefore, I don't like it that RM grouped these two plays together without giving a detailed explanation of the proper administration. Too many people will believe that the administration is the same after reading the RM passage.

Did I say the ruling was wrong? No, I didn't.

What I said was that I had never, ever seen it called that way. And I was wondering if any officials (ones who don't have a stick up their butt) have called it or seen it called.

In (a), the foul by A23 is a player control foul. You cancel the basket(which <b>ISN'T</b> mentioned in the ruling) and administer both fouls as a false double foul. A23 gets 2 FT's with no one on the lane and team B then gets the ball for a throw-in on the end-line after the second FT. If the second FT was good, team B gets to run the endline on their throw-in. See case book play 4.19.9SitA--it's almost similar.

In (b), the contact by A23 came after the basket was made and the ball was dead. Therefore, because A23 was no longer an airbiorne shooter, that contact should have been ignored unless it was deemed intentional or flagrant(which it isn't, from the description). See rule 4-19-1NOTE. Iow, you count the basket by A23 and give A23 one FT for the foul by B55, with the players lined up. No foul on A55.

Referee magazine gave an incomplete answer in case (a) and was wrong in case (b). It's certainly not the first time they've done that and probably not the last.

EDIT: I see Nevada cited the same case play for (a). The OP intimated imo that the ball had gone through before the contact by A23 in case (b). I agree that the play is not well written up by Referee.

Not quite true, JR. I had a similar thought when I first read the play, but then gave it some thought. My earlier response gave why the RM ruling in part (b) could well be correct as the play only says that "the ball enters the basket."

I don't recall being asked for one, but if you desire it, my belief is that the common 26 year-old doesn't have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment. That is what I truly believe that officiating is about. It's much more than just calling fouls and violations, which is where the focus of the standard 26 year-old is.

Feel free to disagree, but that's my honest opinion.

So, the 26 year-old offical, who may be in shape and able to get up and down the court with ease, should not be allowed to work at the highest levels because they do not, "have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment", while the 66 year-old official, who has 30-40 years of experience and commands a great deal of respect, should not be allowed because they cannot get up and down the court with the same ease as a 26 year-old?

At what age do the two (physical ability and experience) overlap? And how long do they overlap?

Hey - when I was 26 I was already U.S. ambassador to Antarctica and also captain of the U.S. Olympic Sarcasm Team. That's pretty mature, if you ask me!

Suddenly it becomes the 'common' ...'standard'...26 year-old. I'll go out on a limb and say that common people of any age don't become D1 officials.

I think there are 26 year olds that are much more physically able to do many things than someone at the age of 46, 56 or 66. And I think they can command respect if they have shown just like everyone else that you can do a good job. It is not impossible to gain that respect and in some cases it is easier because people see might see their up side compared to an older official.

I know this is a common comparison, but a 26 year old could be in the military for 8 years. And in this day and age could have been to war several times in this day and age. I think if that same 26 year old is capable of doing things that involve life or death, then they could easily work a basketball game at a high level. And that does not include the many other professions that require very high levels of stress and life or death situations (e.g. Police Officer, Fireman). I am sure there are 26 year olds running some businesses that might have more people accountable than any basketball game which is after all recreation.

Peace

You just saved me a whole lot of typing.

Jeff, fwiw, I agree with you. I was just asking these questions for Nevada's sake, as he has been on record saying he feels officials should be subject to an upper age limit due to general physical abilities, and now he is advocating a lower age limit, due to experience limitations.

I would think age should not be a major determing factor, but rather each official's overall abilities should determine the level they are able to work.

I disagree.

Emotional and mental maturity depends solely on the individual. You can't judge everybody or anybody using age solely.

How old was Bill Gates when he started Microsoft? Twenty?

You are wise beyond my years.

Except for not knowing how to spell "determining".......