Two fouls close together
 

Two recent situations both involving two fouls very close together.

First situation: As lead, I called a holding foul on B1 who was tying up A1 from behind. It was a common foul no bonus. As the two players break, B1 gives a little shove to A1--sort of a "get away from me" shove. It was something that I ordinarily would have handled by a forceful "knock it off." The trail official comes flying in with his arms crossed and says "call it intentional." I'm thinking that maybe he saw the hold as an intentional and I report it that way to the table. Later during half time, the official says he made the intentional call because of the shove on the break. It seems to me that, if anything, it would be a common foul and either ignore the after contact or call a technical if the contact required it. The other offical just sort of wrapped it all up into one act.

Second situation: A1 drives the lane and is airborne for a shot. B1 tries to swat the ball from behind and instead hits the arm and the body of A1--a clear foul. A1 then charges into B2 who is stationary in the lane in legal guarding position. So you have a defensive foul on team B on an airborne shooter followed immediately by a charge by that airborne shooter. Are these simultaneous fouls? or a false double foul? and what penalties?

When you blew the whistle for the foul on B1, the ball became dead. You then may have had (judgment call) a contact foul on B1 during a dead ball which cannot, by rule, be a common foul. It would have to be a technical and may or may not be intentional or flagrant.

If the partner whistles a foul as well, don't be afraid to communicate with him/her. Discuss what you saw and what they saw. If he calls an intentional foul on the shove. Then let both fouls stand and shoot some free throws!

-Josh

False double foul.

Unfortunately, you cannot let "both fouls stand". As Mark said, the common foul on B1 happend first, so since the ball was dead, the shove has to either be ignored or be a T. You cannot, by rule, have an intentional foul during a dead ball.

I think I understand what Dbyb's partner was trying to do - penalize the shove without having to go all out and issue the T. But once the first foul occured, any call after that has to be a T. I don't have a big problem with stepping in and telling players to knock the crap off. I also don't have a problem with issuing the T, as it lets the players know we are not going to tolerate any extraciricular activity.

I know what you meant, just wanted clear it up for any newbies preparing to take their test.

You're correct - thanks. Yes, there is a difference between an intentional person and intentional technical foul, and I was talking about the personal foul, which is what I believe the OP's partner was calling.

Acutally, that is all it can be...otherwise it is to be ignored.

I was thinking the same thing. Our OP has hopefully learned a lesson about partner communication. You should not assume your partner is thinking the same thing you are. Even when it seems like he must be. You need to confirm. It only takes a few seconds, and if it turns out you're not on the same page you've saved yourself some possibly serious heartburn.

4.19.9 SITUATIONA:A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A’s basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-4a)

Gee, BITS, I thought I heard a rumor you were quick?...

(See Post #4)

:D

I hope I am not stating the obvious here, but I didn't see it mentioned -
A1's contact with B2 should be given leniency proportional to B1's body contact with A1.

What?!? Are you suggesting...consistency? Are you nuts? :D

It doesn't take me a day to do a day's work. That's what you were getting at, right? :D

Good catch gentleman. I was thinking intentional technical foul

-Josh

As far as you know. :D