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".......

Well, yea, but he didn't have more people to control than a basketball game, until he was like 23 or 24. I mean, 20 IS just too young!!:p

Some safeguards are necessary for the greater good even if they eliminate a few individuals who would otherwise do a good job.

I'll point out that the founding fathers of our country disagree with your individual approach and wrote into the Constitution certain age requirements for holding federal office. US House rep = 25 years, US Senate = 30, US President = 35. Now why do you think that they did that?
It seems that they didn't believe that those 18 and 20 year olds who fought in the war to establish this country were ready to lead it administratively.

Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today.

IMO 35-55 is the age range in which people have the most balance of physical ability and mental maturity/experience to handle the rigors of D1 basketball.

But as always each is entitled to his/her own opinion and I have no qualms with anyone expressing those thoughts (wrong as they may be). ;)

I get it.

At 25, you have enough emotional and mental maturity to be a US House Rep member, but you still don't have enough emotional and mental maturity to officiate a D1 basketball game. Iow, you can help run a country of 300 million people at 25, but not a college basketball game.

True, but you are not in any position to make that decision (neither is anyone else here so this is not an attack on you). So really this conversation is irrelevant. This is just an internet discussion about like whose team is better than my team.

Peace

JR, holding your feelings in like this is just going to hurt you in the long run.

Believe as you wish.

Well this has certainly been an interesting thread to read, but I still don't see where my question has been answered much.

I know the rulings. I have just never seen situations where both fouls are called. When a player gets fouled while shooting and then crashes into someone, I have only seen the first foul called. I have never seen a charging foul called after the initial foul against the defense.

Apparently at 60+ one can't read the following sentence and process the logic of it.

"Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today."

Life Exp 1789 - about 50? hold federal office at half of that.
Life Exp 2008 - about 80? half of that is 40ish.

And apparently at whatevertherhell age you are, you can't comprehend that the damn age requirement to be a House Rep <b>HASN'T</b> freaking changed since 1789. It's 25 years old as of right <b>now</b>, Nevada. April 3, 2008! If anybody was stoopid enough to agree with you, and they sureashell haven't, then the minimum age <b>now</b> in 2008 would be 40ish. They would have changed it. Or maybe even brought up the idea of raising the minimum age. Nobody has that I've ever heard of. That would tell a normal person something right there, methinks.

Your logic makes as much sense as your original dumb hypothesis.

OK - here's an answer. Yeah - I've called it properly every time I've seen it - probably somewhere around 500 or 600 times. There was one 3rd grade girls game in which I called it 17 times against the same team, and that was just in the first quarter. After the fourth call, the coach blew up so I had him tarred and feathered, drawn and quartered, then run out of town on a rail. He was also suspended for a game, not that it mattered, since the body was never found. :p

I've never called it nor have I seen it called over the years I've officiated on the high school level. For that matter, I've never seen it called on any level that I can remember.


.

I have seen (a) once and I didn't hesitate to call it. I have never seen (b), other than minor incidental contact.

I waived off the successful attempt, reported both fouls, and awarded two shots.

No, I didn't have to T any coaches. :D

I've never seen it called, but I've never seen it happen (much to socal's surprise). Normally, when the play is similar, it's more of a situation when B1 pushes A1 (who is shooting) into B2 (who has LGP). I'm not penalizing A1 for getting pushed and redirected.
If I see a situation where A1 crashes into B2 without the aid of B1 (a foul on the arm or something), I'll call both fouls and explain it to my assigner if he/she requires.

"All right, son, I won't ask you." **

















**Gertie from Tom Slick Anybody remember that one?

I actually had this happen in a men's rec game a while back. Fed rules. It's the end of the half, Team A is on offense taking the ball out. A1 receives the inbounds pass about 30 feet from the basket and jacks up a 3. B1 lunges at the shot and fouls A1 (arms get tangled and there's plenty of body contact). While still in the air and right after B1 fouls A1, A1 grabs both of B1's arms and pulls him to the floor w/ him.

It's a HTBT, but if A1 is <b>tangled-up</b> and off-balance because of B1's contact, I'm gonna call a foul on the <i>tangler</i>, not the <i>tanglee</i>.

Yes, I have.

Nevada

"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"

Sounds like your officiating philosophy is backwards. Since when do we as officials adjust our game to the perceptions, whims, moods of coaches and players. A 26 year old D1 obviously has earned the privilege to officiate going thru the normal scrutiny that any other official would. The minute he steps on the court, coaches and players had better give him the respect the uniform has earned, along with the person wearing it. The day we start adjusting our officiating to make coaches and players feel warm and fuzzy will surely be a sad one.

Conversely, If a head coach happened to be 23 years old, he/she would get the same respect from me as any other coach would. I respect the position and realize there is a reason they were chosen.

But again, believe as you wish.

Well said imo.

No, I have never seen it called that way. I have only seen the initial foul penalized.

I've either got an intentional foul on A1, or nothing. Most likely nothing, but if it's obvious he's just retaliating by pulling B1 down, I'll call both fouls (shooting on B1 and intentional on A1.)

Isn't this similar to what Kobe Bryant was fined for last season? Hitting his opponent after a foul?
the initial foul was called but Kobe wasn't penalized the first time it occurred. and the second time he committed the same act he was hit with an intentional?
He was fined by the league both times for a flagrant foul if i remember correctly.

I don't remember that there were fouls called on the defenders in those situations.

Thanks JR, I really believe that.

From now on you shall be referred to as Clarence Thomas as you truly are a yes man.

That's just not appropriate.

Why? He agrees with every post by Rut and JR just the same way that CT always votes with Scalia on the Court.

Would you prefer that I call him Ed McMahon?

I couldn't care less how you refer to fullor. He's a big boy and can take care of himself in here.

I think it's inappropriate because this board has gone to great pains to keep politics out, and I'm certain you could find as high a correlation between Breyer and Ginsburg's votes, for example. Yet no-one calls either of them a yes-man (or yes-girl).

If you want to get into a political discussion about the Supreme Court, I'm game. But there not really allowed here, so this amounts to no-more than a drive-by pot-shot.

Ed McMahon would have been more appropriate, yes. And more accurate, IMO.

Back to the OP, if simultaneous fouls had indeed been called by two different officials, who reports the fouls? Would each official report the foul he/she called, or after conferring, would one report both fouls?

A little crisp today Nevada?

Just don't bring the coke can into it.

Believe as you wish.

Do you really keep track of who agrees with who on this Forum? And do you actually really <b>care</b>?

Lah-freaking-me......:rolleyes:

Nothing changes...you report the foul that you called.

I know I do not. Fullor and I disagreed a little bit this week alone. I guess Nevada is still mad that he does not know the difference between what the NF wants and what states want.

Peace