2 Team mates Foul 2 Opponents

[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............

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I pointed out a couple of years ago on this forum that this situation is NOT covered by the current rules.

.......if the officials believe that the two fouls truly were simultaneous. ......... the officials must determine that one of the fouls happened before the other and only penalize that one. The other one gets ignored......

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is no way to proceed if the officials believe that the two fouls truly were simultaneous. Under the current rules the officials must determine that one of the fouls happened before the other and only penalize that one. The other one gets ignored since the contact was during a dead ball and was not intentional or flagrant.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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 approximately 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 approximately 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.

Don't worry, JR. I agree with all of that. I just don't care for the wording used in the rule. However, by extrapolation and approximation, it is clearly the best that can be done when it cannot be determined that one foul took place prior to the other. I'm also unsatisfied that there is no clear direction for the penalty enforcement of such a situation.