2 Team mates Foul 2 Opponents

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

A fellow referee related a situation from one of his games earlier this week. He was C, he said he heard both partners' whistles simultaneously, each had called a foul. L had A5 fouling B5, T had A1 fouling B1 it was the 7th and 8th fouls committed by team A. What is the correct way to proceed.

1) There is no rule extant that will allow you to ignore one of the fouls if both officials are adamant that the fouls occurred at the same time. Rule 2-6 states that neither official has the authority to set aside another official's call. There is no provision in Rule 2-5 either for the Referee to decide if one of the foul calls should be ignored. There is a rule covering a violation and a foul occuring at the same time. In that case you have to decide which occurred first. That's covered in case book plays 2.6SitA and 2.6SitB.
2) There is language covering fouls being committed by teammates at the same time against different opponents. Rule 4-19-12 covers that call. It says that "a false multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more fouls by the same team and the last foul is committed before the clock is started following the first, and at least one of the attributes of a multiple foul is absent." The attribute of a multiple foul that is absent in your situation is that the fouls were not committed against the same player, but were committed against teammates.
3) The penalty for a false multiple foul is laid out in 10-6PENALTIES(Rule 10 Summary under #7--"In case of a false double foul or a false multiple foul, each foul carries it's own penalty. In this case, the individual penalty for each foul is a one-and-one by each player fouled.
4) The only thing not definitively covered is which player shoots their one-and-one first. However, you still have rules that will allow you to decide. You can use Rule 2-3 and let the R pick who shoots their FT's first.

Ideally, the 2 officials will come to some kind of agreement that one foul actually did occur before the other...which means the second foul is ignored(unless the contact is intentional or flagrant). If the two officials can't decide between themselves whether one foul occurred before the other though, use the procedure outlined above. Rules rulz...and these will cover your azz.

[mbyron]

My first thought when reading the OP was "false multiple foul." The sticky one is, of course, the one Nevada brings up: the case where the two fouls are team fouls #6 and #7.

For exactly one of these fouls the penalty is 1-and-1, so we need to be able to pick who should shoot. But this is arbitrary, just like picking who shoots first if they both have to shoot. Let the R pick based on 2-3.

If you have 2 shooters, would you shoot the first with the lane cleared?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1) Let the R pick based on 2-3.

2) If you have 2 shooters, would you shoot the first with the lane cleared?

1) Yup.
2)Yup. Rule 8-1-3 sez you don't line up when the ball becomes dead on an unsuccessful last FT of a "specific" penalty. That "specific" penalty is the first 1/1. Line 'em up for the 2nd. 1/1.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Yup.
2)Yup. Rule 8-3 sez you don't line up when the ball becomes dead on an unsuccessful last FT of a "specific" penalty. That "specific" penalty is the first 1/1. Line 'em up for the 2nd. 1/1.

It continues to be important when one shooter is awarded 1+1, and the other shooter 2 shots.

This happens when the fouls are the 9th and 10th of the half.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

It continues to be important when one shooter is awarded 1+1, and the other shooter 2 shots.

This happens when the fouls are the 9th and 10th of the half.

No, it doesn't matter diddlysquat under 8-1-3 which one you pick to shoot first. Whichever ever one you choose to shoot first, the ball is still dead on an unsucessful last FT for that "specific" penalty, whether that FT is the first or second of a 1/1, or the second of 2 shots.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

For exactly one of these fouls the penalty is 1-and-1, so we need to be able to pick who should shoot. But this is arbitrary, just like picking who shoots first if they both have to shoot. Let the R pick based on 2-3.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Yup.
2)Yup. Rule 8-1-3 sez you don't line up when the ball becomes dead on an unsuccessful last FT of a "specific" penalty. That "specific" penalty is the first 1/1. Line 'em up for the 2nd. 1/1.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

It continues to be important when one shooter is awarded 1+1, and the other shooter 2 shots.

This happens when the fouls are the 9th and 10th of the half.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No, it doesn't matter diddlysquat under 8-1-3 which one you pick to shoot first. Whichever ever one you choose to shoot first, the ball is still dead on an unsucessful last FT for that "specific" penalty, whether that FT is the first or second of a 1/1, or the second of 2 shots.

I believe that you missed my point.

If it is true that it matters which player is issued a foul that is deemed to be the team's 6th of the half, and therefore the other foul is the team's 7th of a half, then it is equally important when it comes to 9 and 10. This is because the penalties for 9 and 10 and different, just as they are for fouls 6 and 7.

My point is that a coach should have a preference which player shoots the 1+1 and which player shoots the 2, just as he would (most likely) want the better FT shooter to be the bonus in the 6/7th foul situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

My point is that a coach should have a preference which player shoots the 1+1 and which player shoots the 2, just as he would (most likely) want the better FT shooter to be the bonus in the 6/7th foul situation.

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 IS 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 both fouls under that circumstance. You do 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 NOT 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.

[JugglingReferee]

I think we need to do something to at least attempt to determine which foul happened first. Perhaps one calling official saw something peripherally regarding the other foul, or the durations between foul and whistle can be contrasted. To make no attempt, and go with 2-3, I think is not trying enough. Yes, it is very difficult, but we have to try.

Yes, the lane should be cleared if there are two shooters.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think we need to do something to at least attempt to determine which foul happened first. Perhaps one calling official saw something peripherally regarding the other foul, or the durations between foul and whistle can be contrasted. To make no attempt, and go with 2-3, I think is not trying enough. Yes, it is very difficult, but we have to try.

R.I.F.

What part of "Ideally, the 2 officials will come to some kind of agreement that one foul actually did occur before the other one....which means that the second foul is ignored(unless intentional or flagrant). If the two officials can't decide between themselves whether one foul occurred before the other though, use the procedure outlined above." didn't you get?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

R.I.F.

What part of "Ideally, the 2 officials will come to some kind of agreement that one foul actually did occur before the other one....which means that the second foul is ignored(unless intentional or flagrant). If the two officials can't decide between themselves whether one foul occurred before the other though, use the procedure outlined above." didn't you get?

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

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

Eluding the facts is a dangerous and undesirable practice.

[ma_ref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rule 4-19-12 covers that call. It says that "a false multiple foul is a situation in which there are two or more fouls by the same team and the last foul is committed before the clock is started following the first, and at least one of the attributes of a multiple foul is absent."

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.

[AKOFL]

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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............