Who cares if the the coach has a preference? The point of this whole thread is that the rules don't definitively cover which player shoots. Everything else <b>IS</b> covered. You can't make one of the fouls disappear if both officials are adamant that their call will stand. You still have to penalize <b>both</b> fouls under that circumstance. You <b>do</b> have rules coverage in R2-3 that will allow the R to pick which foul was the seventh though and who shoots. The coach does <b>NOT</b> have a say under any circumstances.....he has to accepts the R's choice.

Never worry about what the coach thinks. Worry about what your Assignor/Evaluator thinks. They are God. :D

Believe me, you never have to worry about me worrying what a coach thinks. It is clearly worthwhile to know that a coach will have a preference. This is because knowing that a coach will have a preference will prepare one for a method of dealing with that conversation.

I am not sure why you are stressing that the coach doesn't have a say. Everybody here understands that. And I know that you know that I know that.

If you claim that 2-3 says the R chooses who shoots because of the 7th foul, then he also chooses who shoots because of the 9th and 10th foul. Since these fouls carry different penalties, the effect of R's choice is not zero.

So in other words, we're on the same page! :D

What does it matter if I post something an hour later than you do, and it leads to the same fact?

Eluding the facts is a dangerous and undesirable practice. :rolleyes:

I believe this scenario is covered under rule 11:

11-5-1: In situations where officials have simultaneous or near-simultaneous whistles involving fouls on the same team against different players, all officials huddle together closely. They shall pretend to talk to one another and occasionally nod their heads to make it appear as though they're having a meaningful discussion. Meanwhile, out of view from spectators and game personnel, 1 official secretly flips a coin to determine which foul really happened first. The official who wins the coin flip then reports their foul to the table, and the other official(s) return to their correct position on the playing court.

Does the official whose call didn't count get to keep the coin?

Yes.

MTD, Sr.

Generally yes, but if the winning official puts in a claim for the coin, then another coin flip is performed to determine ownership of the coin. See rule 11-5-1(a)...

For the most part, I agree with the dinosaur and also am thrilled to see him back posting on the forum again! :)

However, the wording of the false multiple foul rule is problematic for a situation in which the two fouls occur simultaneously as one foul certainly wasn't committed following the other.

Not to disagree with you nevada, but it's the closest rule we have, to get an idea from, on how to handle said sit. Not a good sentance I know:D

No more problematic than simply ignoring one as you suggested. In reality, most officials would probably go with one call/signal, and ignore the other, but on the blarge thingie, y'all said I couldn't do that, so............

You continue to misconstrue my post. I wrote that the officials must get together and decide which foul happened first, and then BY RULE (4-19-1 Note) the other one gets ignored. I did not advocate that the officials simply ignore one of the two fouls without reason, simply because they feel like it.

I am advocating following the rules. You are advocating ignoring the rules in the case of the blarge. It's really that simple.

You said that they truly believe the fouls were simultaneous. So you are suggesting they ignore the facts in order to follow the rules.

The fact that both fouls occurred simultaneously wasn't the difference between calling a multiple foul or a false multiple foul in this particular situation. A multiple foul occurs when two or more teammates commit personal fouls at <b>approximately</b> the same time. "Approximately the same time" equates to "simultaneously", rules-wise. The definition of a false multiple foul says that "at least one of the attributes of a multiple foul is missing." The attribute that is missing in this sitch is that the fouls were committed against teammates, not the same opponent.

If neither official will back down on their foul call, you have no choice but to penalize both fouls. There is no rules provision that I know of that will allow us to do anything other than that. And penalizing the fouls under a "false multiple foul" is defendable rules-wise imho.

Nope, the problem is that you are conveniently parsing my words in an attempt to make them read as you desire.

In fact, my two sentences express completely different thoughts. The first states that there is no definitive rule for the situation in which the fouls truly are simultaneous. The officials are stuck and would have to defer to 2-3 as Jurassic noted.

HOWEVER, if the officials get together and determine that one of the fouls occurred prior to the other, then BY RULE the second one is ignored. JR also mentioned that.

Nowhere did I suggest that the officials ignore one of the fouls if they truly believe that they happened simultaneously. That is your misunderstanding.

Now please stop attempting to make my words into something which they are not. I do not believe what you continue to say that I do.