What do you have?

[Lah Me]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great citations on your most recent post, but how about a citation for the quote above? I'm not fully convinced that this is true.

It's common sense. How else could you possibly designate the kind of double foul you just called other than going with the the kind of foul that you called first? The only choices you have are (1) a double personal foul, or (2) a double technical foul. If the first foul is a personal foul, then howinthehell could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul? And versa--visa.

And I ain't trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm simply stating my understanding of the rules and my reasons for believing that understanding by citing appropriate and relevant rules and case plays.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

If the first foul is a personal foul, then howinthehell could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul? And versa--visa.

A dead giveaway?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

It's common sense. How else could you possibly designate the kind of double foul you just called other than going with the the kind of foul that you called first? The only choices you have are (1) a double personal foul, or (2) a double technical foul. If the first foul is a personal foul, then how could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul?

You're right, it's common sense, and, it can also be cited:

NFHS 4-19-8: Double fouls:
a. A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.
b. A double technical foul is a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Pretty good for a newbie. Keep up the good work.