Simultaneous foul w/ bucket - what is POI?

[Mendy Trent]

A1 lets a 3-pointer fly. After it is in the air (A1 still an airborne shooter), B1 runs into him and U1 whistles a foul. At exactly the same time, U2 whistles a foul on A2 who knocked B2 to the ground while blocking out way too aggressively. The 3-point try by A1 is successful. U1 and U2 get together and decide that they have a simultaneous foul situation.

What is the POI? Do we shoot the FT with the lane cleared and then award the ball to team B regardless of the FT being made or missed? Or do we shoot the free throw with players on the lane (basically not penalizing the foul on A2 except for the additional team foul to Team A)?

Rule or Case reference please. Is it different for NCAA and NFHS?

[Adam]

Rule reference: 4-36-2-b
"A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occured during the activity or if a team is entitled to such."

In this case, B gets a throw-in anywhere along the endline.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

A1 lets a 3-pointer fly. After it is in the air (A1 still an airborne shooter), B1 runs into him and U1 whistles a foul. At exactly the same time, U2 whistles a foul on A2 who knocked B2 to the ground while blocking out way too aggressively. The 3-point try by A1 is successful. U1 and U2 get together and decide that they have a simultaneous foul situation.

What is the POI? Do we shoot the FT with the lane cleared and then award the ball to team B regardless of the FT being made or missed? Or do we shoot the free throw with players on the lane (basically not penalizing the foul on A2 except for the additional team foul to Team A)?

Rule or Case reference please. Is it different for NCAA and NFHS?

According to 10-6 Penalty Summary 1d, there are no free throws awarded for a simultaneous personal foul and the ball is put back in play at the POI. Therefore, A1 is not entitled to a FT despite being fouled in the act of shooting (as an airborne shooter). That opportunity is lost due to the foul by his teammate A2. For the same reason B2 would not be entitled to any FTs even if his team were in the bonus.

In this case, the made goal by A1 entitles Team B to an endline throw-in, so according 4-36-2b that is our POI.
The closest Case Book reference for the POI comes from a play with a double foul, but since 10-6 Penalty Summary 1c tells us that the penalty for that is the same, other than which players are charged with the fouls, this still provides proper guidance.

4.19.8 SITUATION E:

A1 has control of the ball in Team A's frontcourt. Post
players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous
position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) the ball is in the

air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for
goal by A1. An official calls a double personal foul on A5 and B5. RULING: In (a)
and (b), Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus
play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated
spot throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double
foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since
the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be
resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the
ball was located when the double foul occurred. Had the try been successful, the
point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along
the end line. (4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In this case, the made goal by A1 entitles Team B to an endline throw-in, so according 4-36-2b that is our POI.

Agreed. See also 4.19.8C

Interestingly, though, if it was a false double foul, then FTs are shot (see 4.19.9A -- so if A1 and B1 foul each other, the shot counts and B gets a throw-in (or we go to AP if the shot wasn't successful). If B1 fouls A1 and A1 fouls B2, then the shot doesn't count and we shoot FTs and then B gets a throw-in.)

I'm sure that's a distinction that not many coaches (or officials) will understand.

[SmokeEater]

So, the fact that there is the double foul negates the infraction by B1 on the shooter? I would have thought that A1 would get 1 shot and then B gets teh end line throw in. Very interesting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... If B1 fouls A1 and A1 fouls B2, then the shot doesn't count and we shoot FTs and then B gets a throw-in.)

I'm sure that's a distinction that not many coaches (or officials) will understand.

What will be even harder to explain to the coach is why A1 is being charged with a foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

So, the fact that there is the double foul negates the infraction by B1 on the shooter? I would have thought that A1 would get 1 shot and then B gets teh end line throw in. Very interesting.

What happens if there were no fouls? That's what (almost always) happens if there is a double foul or a simultaneous foul.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What happens if there were no fouls? That's what (almost always) happens if there is a double foul or a simultaneous foul.

Ok, Right I miss read the OP. For some reason I was thinking there was a double foul called on the players boxing each other out. There by it would have left us with 3 infractions to report. Then I believe we are left with the free throw and B gets a throw in on end line.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

Ok, Right I miss read the OP. For some reason I was thinking there was a double foul called on the players boxing each other out. There by it would have left us with 3 infractions to report. Then I believe we are left with the free throw and B gets a throw in on end line.

I disagree. A1 is the jumpshooter. B1 fouls him in after the release, but before he returns to the floor. At approximately the same time A4 and B4, who are battling for rebounding position near the basket, are whistled for a double foul. The try is successful.

I believe that the double foul and the personal foul by B1 still get classified as simultaneous fouls and thus no FTs would be awarded. Resume at the POI -- endline throw-in for Team B.

But it would be nice to have a case play from the NFHS on this.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. A1 is the jumpshooter. B1 fouls him in after the release, but before he returns to the floor. At approximately the same time A4 and B4, who are battling for rebounding position near the basket, are whistled for a double foul. The try is successful.

I believe that the double foul and the personal foul by B1 still get classified as simultaneous fouls and thus no FTs would be awarded. Resume at the POI -- endline throw-in for Team B.

But it would be nice to have a case play from the NFHS on this.

A simultaneous foul.....is a situation in which there is a foul by both teams which occurs at approximately the same time, but are not committed by opponents against each other.

The above situation would not meet this definition. What we have here is a double foul and another foul, which, I would think must be dealt with separately, as suggested by SmokeEater.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A simultaneous foul.....is a situation in which there is a foul by both teams which occurs at approximately the same time, but are not committed by opponents against each other.

The above situation would not meet this definition. What we have here is a double foul and another foul, which, I would think must be dealt with separately, as suggested by SmokeEater.

Ok, assume that is true. Now how do you deal with them separately? Specifically, in which order would you suggest administering the penalties? Recall that 8-7 says to administer the fouls in the order in which they occurred. Here they occurred at the same time.

I admit that the situation isn't crystal clear, which is why I said that an NFHS play ruling would be nice.

There seem to be three ways of viewing this situation.

1. As I wrote above, the fouls by A4 and B4 combine to make ONE foul -- a double foul. Then that foul would combine with the other foul by B1 to make up the simultaneous foul. No one gets any FTs and the games resumes from the POI. However, as you point out one of the fouls in this case (the double foul) is not a foul by a team, but by both teams.

2. Take all three fouls that occurred at approximately the same time and offset them as best you can. However, the only reasonable offsetting is A4 and B4 which is clearly a double foul, not a simultaneous foul. One could pair B1's foul with A4's that meets the definition of a simultaneous foul, and would leave B4's to be administered, but that seems whacky.

3. Understand the three fouls to be a double foul and a personal foul, which occur at the same time. Now figure out how to administer this.
This is problematic too.
A. Should we apply the penalty for the double foul first, which gives no FTs and sends us to the POI, and that would then be the foul by B1. So charge A4 and B4 with personal fouls and then pretend that they didn't happen and proceed as normal with the foul by B1.
B. Or should we first apply the penalty for the personal foul by B1, award the single FT with the lane clear, and then apply the penalty for the double foul and go to the POI. In that case what is the POI? Is it the endline throw-in from the made goal? Or would it be the throw-in from the made FT? What if the FT is unsuccessful? Do we use the AP arrow?

After giving this situation some thought, I'm leaning toward method 3A because it seems to be the smoothest and most equitable, but I still see no justification for applying the penalty for the double foul prior to the penalty for the personal foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. A1 is the jumpshooter. B1 fouls him in after the release, but before he returns to the floor. At approximately the same time A4 and B4, who are battling for rebounding position near the basket, are whistled for a double foul. The try is successful.

I believe that the double foul and the personal foul by B1 still get classified as simultaneous fouls and thus no FTs would be awarded. Resume at the POI -- endline throw-in for Team B.

But it would be nice to have a case play from the NFHS on this.

An NFHS case play on a situation where three fouls are called at once? I doubt we'll ever see it (the situation or the case play). If this play happens, the non-calling official gets free beer from his partners all season long.

Speaking of the non-calling official, that reminds me. How do you rotate this when you have two officials calling simultaneous (or even double) fouls?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Should we apply the penalty for the double foul first, which gives no FTs and sends us to the POI, and that would then be the foul by B1. So charge A4 and B4 with personal fouls and then pretend that they didn't happen and proceed as normal with the foul by B1.

This is the only reasonable solution.

What happens if there were no fouls? That's what (almost always) happens if there is a double foul or a simultaneous foul.

A wise man once said, "Always listen to Bob."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

An NFHS case play on a situation where three fouls are called at once? I doubt we'll ever see it (the situation or the case play). If this play happens, the non-calling official gets free beer from his partners all season long.

I guess I owe some beers.

Most bizarre one that I've ever had

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Speaking of the non-calling official, that reminds me. How do you rotate this when you have two officials calling simultaneous (or even double) fouls?

You now have two Trails.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I guess I owe some beers.

Most bizarre one that I've ever had



You now have two Trails.

Or two Cs, if you're IAABO.