throw-in after double personal during free throw
 

Been playing and watching b-ball for 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen a double personal foul called. But I'm studying for my first exam.

A-1 is to shoot a free throw. A-2 and B-2, positioned along the lane, are called for a double personal foul as
(a) the official is bouncing the ball to A-1:
(b) A-1 is holding the ball at the line:
(c) A-1 is in the act of shooting:
(d) A-1’s shot is in the air:
(e) A-1’s shot is in the basket:

I think -
In (a) and (b) the official reclaims the ball, reports the fouls to the table, and then A-1 gets his shot; there's no throw-in.
In (d) there's no team control at the point of interruption; the shot counts if it's good; then the AP arrow determines who gets a designated-spot throw-in behind the end line.
In (e) the shot counts; the official stops play and reports the fouls, then B gets a throw-in with the run of the end line.
What about (c)?

Thanks for any thoughts.

First of all the question is incorrectly written.
Under the conditions given in (a) the fouls must be technical fouls because the ball is dead until it is caught by the free thrower. So in (a) a double technical foul shall be called. The game will be resumed at the POI, which is A1 attempting the FT under the same conditions.

(b) The fouls make a double personal foul and the POI is used. A1 attempting his FT under the same conditions.

(c) A1's try is dead because a DPF has occurred and the try was not yet in flight. The ruling is the same as (b).

(d) Since the try is in the air when the DPF occurs, the result of the FT stands, whatever that may be. The POI depends upon whether this FT attempt was to be followed by another one or not and if it was successful or not.

(e) A1's FT counts, the DPF is reported, and the game resumes at the POI, which is either another FT for A1 or an end line throw-in for Team B. That would depend upon whether or not A1 is entitled to an additional FT.

Doubles
 

I hate calling double personnels....always go back thinking someone fouled first and I missed THAT one - then it led to the one we called.

So when one player smacks the other and then that guy immediately retaliates, are you going to let the second player get away with a free shot at his opponent or are you going to call that a technical foul?

In such a situation a double personal foul is completely proper and fair.

Were You My Partner Two Seasons Ago ???
 

My words from an earlier thread:

Two seasons ago, I had a partner, a veteran, who calls a pretty good game, but doesn't pay too much attention to rules, or mechanics, ream me out at halftime for calling a double foul in the first half, and to never call a double foul in any of his games ever again. I filed that "constructive criticism" under, "When In Rome ...". These two kids were elbowing each other at the mid-post position. They didn't heed my warning to, "Knock it off". My double foul cleaned up that type of action for the rest of the game.

Participated in an assignors preseason weekend camp- varsity boys scrimmage showcase games, and the the experienced instructor working the 3 man with us 2 "campers" tells us in pregame that we need to watch for lane violations because of arms being outside the lane(you know- players trying to get positioning/crossing arms prior/during the free throw).
Instructor is administering 1 free throw after a made basket, shooter has ball, he calls DPF, goes to AP. He points out afterwards that calling that early cleaned up that issue the rest of the game....

I'll Check The Obituaries, Then I'll Vote ...
 

Good advice:

Voting in Chicago: "Vote early. Vote often".

Calling double fouls: Definitely call them early, but not necessarily often.

They're not called often, but it may be that one was called in a game you were watching and you just didn't know it. It's a really good tool for officials who have opposing knuckleheads to deal with.

Ever watch Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom?
 

And they show slow motion of two rams butting heads?

Who creates the contact first on those?

I've had plays where A1 and B1 hurl themselves towards each other when positioning for a rebound. Fortunately its usually shoulder to shoulder, but very similar to the rams.

Also, as a side note, I've noticed the winner of the A1/B1 matchup often is perceived as the better potential mate by the ewes!

I Only Have Eyes For Ewe ...
 

Simple. It's the Tower Philosophy. It's the one who puts the other one at a disadvantage not intended by a rule. And why would two Rams be butting heads? They play the Dolphins today, and I'll be watching for this type of action.

Boy, does that bring back memories. My mom was a precinct worker in the original Daley machine. I remember once she "sold" a loading zone permit to some hardware store owner for $50. Of course, the money went to the local party office.

It wasn't until I moved to Oregon that I found out politics and government might sometimes be two separate things. However, recently, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Make sure that you respond with a big "HEE-HAW" because that assignor is a DONKEY. :eek:

Clarification
 

If there's a smack and retaliation, probably gonna have double T and possible ejection.

I didn't say I don't call DPFs. I only said I usually think I could have done a better job handling the situation prior to the incident through talking, persuading etc. Sometimes, players are gonna be stubborn and you have to call it. No prob. I just wish my game managment skills were such that it didn't happen.

How is that possible when the first contact occurs during a live ball?

How do you justify charging that player with a T?

Depends on exactly what a "smack" is.

Why?

If the first smack is considered the start of a fight.....

and that matters because...???

I'll play along.

10-3-8: A player shall not be charged with fighting.

I can play this game too. ;)

8.7 SITUATION A:

RULING:

*10.4.5 SITUATION A:

Double, Personal, Technical ??? Help ...
 

These are good citations, however, they both seem to describe simultaneous acts, or, a situation where one act is clearly not stated as happening before/or after the other one.

Let me keep it simple. For me. Not for you. Live Ball. Clock running. A1 and B1 down in the post. The official sees A1 land a punch on B1. Whistle is blown. Official sees B1 retaliate by landing a punch on A1.

My opinion, but I can be persuaded otherwise: A1 charged with flagrant personal foul (live ball contact). That foul, not the whistle, makes the ball dead. B1 is charged with a flagrant technical foul (dead ball contact).

Yet 10-3-8 (A player shall not be charged with fighting) makes we wonder if both of these are technical fouls? I believe that you can't have a double foul that includes one personal, and one technical? Inquiring minds, and confused minds, want to know. Help.

1. The citations are intended to show that the FIRST foul, which is a contact foul during a live ball, is a personal foul. That was the only point that I was making with these references. I didn't really care about the second foul. Perhaps I should simply find a play ruling in which there is only one punch and no response during a live ball. That would be clearer. I'll look for it.

2. You are correct that both fouls of a double foul must be either both personal or both technical.

3. Assuming no try for goal is involved, the foul does make the ball dead, not the whistle. You are correct about that. However, when the response by the opponent occurs almost immediately, the best ruling is to treat the fouls as happening at "approximately the same time." That makes them constitute a double foul.

4. If you have a serious time lag between the two offences, I would say more than a couple of seconds, then you have to go with a false double foul and penalize each one separately and in the order in which they occurred.

5. 10-3-8 must be taken in context. It means fighting during a dead ball.

Either somebody here described it this way or I dreamed this, but I like this explanation. One punch does not a fight make. If A1 punches B1 during a live ball and that is the end of it, I have no problem with a flagrant personal. But if this punch leads to further activity, the whole thing is a fight, which started with the start of the first swing, or perhaps even with the contemplation of that first swing, not with the actual contact. This, I think, is when 10-3-8 comes into play.

Interesting take. I don't agree with it, but it is an arguable theory.

I don't believe that it is correct because of how the definition of fighting in 4-18-1 is written.

Without a doubt, these 2 plays give some significance to your argument. But I think this is greatly minimized by the fact that in both these plays there is only a passing reference to the fouls in question. Rule 8-7 deals with the administration sequence for free throws. Rule 10-4 deals with bench technicals. 10-3 deals with player technicals and states directly that no player shall be charged with fighting. There is no case play for 10-3-8. I'm guessing that this is because most people would consider this statement to be extremely self explanatory.

Your turn :)

If fighting were always a technical foul no matter what, without exception, then those case plays wouldn't need to exist. Their very existence demonstrates otherwise and proves that 10-3-5 must be taken in the context of a dead ball.

If the fights in both these plays had taken place while the ball was dead,
(8.7 after the ball goes through the basket, 10.4.5 during any dead ball) how would that have changed the play?