Simultaneous Personal Fouls?

[jfelker]

A1 returns to the floor completing a try and then is fouled by B1(not in the act, shot was no good)called by T. At the same time, L has a foul off the ball committed by A2. Team A is in the bonus. The officials meet at the table and each wonders "why are you here?" Normally you'd think that they would decide which foul occurred first and since neither was flagrant or intentional, the second one would be moot - not the case they decided that they had occurred simultaneously and then had to figure out how to enforce. What they did was, let A shoot the bonus w/ no one lined up and then went to the arrow. Nobody griped but was it right??

[Bart Tyson]

By book if both fouls happen same time. I think I would have had one happen first.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Sounds like it's right, technically, since they turned it into a double-foul. But I'd be pretty concerned about partners whose communication is so poor that they end up meeting at the table to report a foul and didn't even know the other also had a call. At least with lesser-experienced refs, the tendency is often to be too quick to do things. A crucial skill is to always communicate with one's partner, whether verbally or at least via eye contact, on calls--includes foul calls, OOB, violations, etc. Why WOULDN'T these guys be looking at the other after making a call? Gotta slow it down, communicate, then report if necessary. Same with granting time-outs: communicate about whose ball or who is shooting the free-throw, and THEN go report to the table. At any rate, if I found myself and my partner hurrying on this occasion, I would still try to determine (i.e., reach an agreement about) which happened first, causing the other to be incidental contact during a dead ball. Then I'd make a mental note to learn from that mistake.

[jfelker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker on 02-22-2000 03:55 PM
Sounds like it's right, technically, since they turned it into a double-foul. But I'd be pretty concerned about partners whose communication is so poor that they end up meeting at the table to report a foul and didn't even know the other also had a call. At least with lesser-experienced refs, the tendency is often to be too quick to do things. A crucial skill is to always communicate with one's partner, whether verbally or at least via eye contact, on calls--includes foul calls, OOB, violations, etc. Why WOULDN'T these guys be looking at the other after making a call? Gotta slow it down, communicate, then report if necessary. Same with granting time-outs: communicate about whose ball or who is shooting the free-throw, and THEN go report to the table. At any rate, if I found myself and my partner hurrying on this occasion, I would still try to determine (i.e., reach an agreement about) which happened first, causing the other to be incidental contact during a dead ball. Then I'd make a mental note to learn from that mistake.

---

Thanks Todd, I agree that thing to do would be communicate and determine which happened first - moral of the story don't call something you can't explain - the liklihood that they both happened at the same time is slim!!

[jfelker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bart Tyson on 02-22-2000 03:46 PM
By book if both fouls happen same time. I think I would have had one happen first.

---

Thanks Bart! , I agree that thing to do would be communicate and determine which happened first - moral of the story don't call something you can't explain - the liklihood that they both happened at the same time is slim!!

[ROBERT TRAHAN]

DOUBLE FOUL,NO FREE THROWS,ALTERNATING-POSSESSION PROCEDURE AT THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT NEAREST THE FOUL.

[Todd VandenAkker]

Oh yea! Forgot that last little tidbit. Good catch, Robert!

[bob jenkins]

First, this isn't a double foul, it's a false double foul. A double foul is "a situation in which opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time. That didnt' happen here.

But, what to do?

I agree the officials should have decided which occurred first, penalized it, then ignored the other (since the ball was dead).

OTOH, there is no provision in the rule books for a "simultaneous" personal foul, so the officials (well, technically the referee)could use 2-3. If they are going that route, I'd use the precedent of the simultaneous technicals and the double foul and just use the arrow -- no free throws.

[Tim Roden]

I am looking through the rule book and am having a hard time finding it. Since this is a False Double foul, I thought I remember reading where each foul carries its own penalty. So figure out which went first and penalize in order. Usually you see this where B1 fouls A1 then A1 commits a T by taunting B1. Then you would be shooting the free throws on one end then shooting the T's on the other with B getting the ball.

Ok, I found it. It was in the summary of all fouls.

7. In case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul carries its own penalty

[This message has been edited by Tim Roden (edited February 23, 2000).]

[Todd VandenAkker]

Hmmm.... In a sense it's a false double foul, but if one foul actually happened before the other, then the other should be considered incidental unless technical, intentional or flagrant. Which gets us back to the point of deciding which occured first and then just administering THAT foul. No doubt the refs will take some heat on that, probably by the coach whose player ultimately was assessed the foul, but I just don't see how or why you would assess BOTH fouls. I admit, the double-foul rule does specify fouls that occur "against each other," so I guess you can't really call it that. What about if the fouls called were on players from the same team? By definition, that couldn't be a "multiple foul" any more than the original situation can be a double foul. Bottom line, I think, is that one of the refs needs to "give up" his call as having occured after the other.

[Tim Roden]

To keep all from getting confused, then yes this is what you need to do. But if neither official is willing to give up his call, then we are stuck with the false double foul senario. So the moral is, either have the guts to give up a call or explain the rule book.