The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 01:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 32
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 02:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 02:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 32
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.

Last edited by bob jenkins; Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47am.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 02:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Does this mean we will soon see an explanation of your stance that a 26 year old shouldn't officiate D1 basketball?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 03:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 03:22pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
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?
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 03:04pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
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!
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 10:55pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
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!


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

















**Gertie from Tom Slick Anybody remember that one?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 04:25pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
I disagree.

Emotional and mental maturity depends solely on the individual. You can't judge everybody or anybody using age solely.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 02:14pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
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.
In (a), the foul by A23 is a player control foul. You cancel the basket(which ISN'T 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.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:20pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 02:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
In (a), the foul by A23 is a player control foul. You cancel the basket(which ISN'T 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.
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."

Last edited by Nevadaref; Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 03, 2008, 06:38pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
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?
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.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 04, 2008, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
I have never ever, ever, seen anyone call this at any level. I have only seen the first foul penalized. Have you?
Yes, I have.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 04, 2008, 08:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendy Trent
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?
No, I have never seen it called that way. I have only seen the initial foul penalized.
__________________
"To learn, you have to listen. To improve, you have to try." (Thomas Jefferson)
Z
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need Nov 2004 issue of Referee Magazine zebraman Basketball 4 Sun Mar 27, 2005 05:35pm
False double foul Rita C Basketball 8 Wed Jan 14, 2004 04:37pm
False Double Foul?? WAZebra Basketball 4 Fri Jan 09, 2004 05:20pm
False Multiple Foul/ False Double/etc.??? sleebo Basketball 10 Tue Jan 06, 2004 02:21am
FALSE DOUBLE FOUL brianp134 Basketball 55 Wed Sep 17, 2003 02:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1