While I have your attention

[wbrown]

A multiple foul by definition.
Rule 4.19.11 A multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approimately the same time.

Case Book

4.19.11 B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time while A1 is: (a) dribbling down the lane; (b) in the act of shooting a successful or unsuccessful two-point try; (c) a successful three-point try; or (d) an unsuccesful three-point try.

Ruling: One free throw for each foul in (a) (b) and (c) and two free throws for each in (d). (10 penalty 6).

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by wbrown

A multiple foul by definition.
Rule 4.19.11 A multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approimately the same time.

Case Book

4.19.11 B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time while A1 is: (a) dribbling down the lane; (b) in the act of shooting a successful or unsuccessful two-point try; (c) a successful three-point try; or (d) an unsuccesful three-point try.

Ruling: One free throw for each foul in (a) (b) and (c) and two free throws for each in (d). (10 penalty 6).

wbrown, except for testing purposes, a mulitple foul doesn't exist. Don't think about, and NEVER call it.

[Back In The Saddle]

They most certainly do exist. I called two in a single game just the other night.

I was working Area 51 league and it was Sasquatch and the Easter Bunny that kept fouling this little Martian point guard. I guess it's tough to guard somebody with four arms.

[M&M Guy]

Bill - this is the perfect example of what separates the "rule book ref" from a good official. What BITS and BktBallRef are subtly telling you is, even though there is a rule in the book about about multiple fouls, in practice it is very rarely, if ever, called. In reality, B1 commited the foul a millisecond before B2, therefore the second contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. The rule is probably in there because someone asked at some point, "What if two different players fouled at EXACTLY the same time?" In realty this almost never happens.

You mentioned in a different thread about being called a "rule book ref". Everyone should know the rules, however there is an art to knowing the rules, and knowing when and how they are applied. That is what separates a good official from a "rule book ref". In this case, calling a multiple foul would mean you are a "rule book ref". Knowing that an intentional foul means two shots and possession, no matter if it is a foul on a shot or not, is an example of being a good official.

Many of us are still perfecting that art. Does that make sense?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Bill - this is the perfect example of what separates the "rule book ref" from a good official. What BITS and BktBallRef are subtly telling you is, even though there is a rule in the book about about multiple fouls, in practice it is very rarely, if ever, called. In reality, B1 commited the foul a millisecond before B2, therefore the second contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. The rule is probably in there because someone asked at some point, "What if two different players fouled at EXACTLY the same time?" In realty this almost never happens.

You mentioned in a different thread about being called a "rule book ref". Everyone should know the rules, however there is an art to knowing the rules, and knowing when and how they are applied. That is what separates a good official from a "rule book ref". In this case, calling a multiple foul would mean you are a "rule book ref". Knowing that an intentional foul means two shots and possession, no matter if it is a foul on a shot or not, is an example of being a good official.

Many of us are still perfecting that art. Does that make sense?

Unsuccessful three-point attempt?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Unsuccessful three-point attempt?

Yea, yea, I know. I guess I was trying to address his other thread on the subject, where the vet screwed up the penalties and not only called an "intentional" a technical foul, but penalized the foul incorrectly. My point was in that case, knowing the correct penalty makes you a good official, not simply a "rule book ref".

Listen to what I mean, not what I say.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yea, yea, I know. I guess I was trying to address his other thread on the subject, where the vet screwed up the penalties and not only called an "intentional" a technical foul, but penalized the foul incorrectly. My point was in that case, knowing the correct penalty makes you a good official, not simply a "rule book ref".

Listen to what I mean, not what I say.

I know; I was just buggin' ya. But I'm sure that somebody would have said something, at some point.

[JRutledge]

Pick one and move on.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

wbrown, except for testing purposes, a mulitple foul doesn't exist. Don't think about, and NEVER call it.

Is a lecture coming soon?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is a lecture coming soon?

Peace

Nah, M&M took care of that already.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I disagree. The message that I see is that we decide which happened first, and rule the other foul as incidental dead ball contact, since it was not intentional or flagrant. See the M&M's post #11.

This works in most cases; but not when B1 and B2 come in and foul an airborne shooter.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This works in most cases; but not when B1 and B2 come in and foul an airborne shooter.

True. Even though I am sometimes on the side of just following what the book says, I have never seen this one called. What's most common, I find, is that B1 plays good defense, perhaps even blocks a shot, and B2 fouls the shooter. Then, B1 chirps at B2 for thwarting his efforts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

True. Even though I am sometimes on the side of just following what the book says, I have never seen this one called.

I wouldn't be afraid to call it; but I do not want to be the first one in my city to make this call.

[Texas Aggie]

The MF rule is basically there to keep in your pocket and pull it out when it can be used effectively. When? Good question. One situation might be late in the game where a team too far behind to do any good is still fouling (2 or more players involved, obviously) and the team they are fouling is not in the bonus. If you are concerned about player safety, you might call a MF, put the player on the line, and move on. Another situation might be a fight that breaks out during a live ball. You can judge a flagrant MF on 2 players and throw them both out.

I've never called one either and I can't think of too many situations where an intentional or flagrant foul might not be better.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The MF rule ........

Whatsa matter with you guys? Don't you know the MF RULES?

Sorry, it was just too obvious.