2 Team mates Foul 2 Opponents

[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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[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.

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Amesman

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

Yes.

MTD, Sr.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by Amesman

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

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)...

[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.

[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 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.