2 Team mates Foul 2 Opponents
 

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the quick reply. I had spent over an hour searching the rule and case book, finding nothing.

IOW, they must make something up? If it is not covered by rules, why could they not penalize both, like when, you know, that other thing happens. Both officials signaled a foul. I have read where this is considered binding.

The problem is when this happens while the offending team has five team fouls and neither foul involves a try for goal. The two fouls would be #6 and #7 of the half for that team, so which opposing player gets to attempt the 1&1? There is simply NO way to decide.

So since you can't decide who would shoot, you simply wouldn't count one of them? That's really thin.

Please enlighten us with your solution. I hope that it's not thin.

1) There is no rule extant that will allow you to ignore <b>one</b> 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 <i>"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."</i> 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--<i>"In case of a false double foul or a <b>false multiple foul</b>, each foul carries it's own penalty.</i> 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

R.I.F.

What part of <i>"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."</i> didn't you get? :D

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.

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.

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.