Multiple foul

[Adam]

The rule is there because they don't want the shooter being fair game for extra contact after the first foul. I've never seen it called, and I can only imagine a very specific scenario where I might call it.

Shooter goes up and get fouled shortly after beginning the shooting motion, ref blows whistle, 2nd defender goes up to block shot and flies into the shooter knocking him to the floor.

Both of these fouls would need to be too serious to ignore but not enough for an intentional.

As others here, I've never seen it called nor do I ever intend to do so.

It's like the 10 seconds for a free throw rule. It's there to keep teams from using the opportunity for a de facto timeout, but most officials have never seen it called.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Shooter goes up and get fouled shortly after beginning the shooting motion, ref blows whistle, 2nd defender goes up to block shot and flies into the shooter knocking him to the floor.

Snaq, wouldn’t this be a false-multiple? Not that I would ever call that either.

I’ve seen a number of multiple fouls, but never seen one called. I’ve never heard any complaint because the multiple-fouls weren’t called.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Snaq, wouldn’t this be a false-multiple? Not that I would ever call that either.

If they are two separate, blatant fouls, why wouldn't you call them both? This is speaking in terms of a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Welpe

If they are two separate, blatant fouls, why wouldn't you call them both? This is speaking in terms of a false multiple foul, not a true multiple foul.

Well, I guess I shouldn’t say “ever”. But with your basic garden variety fouls that are that close together as Snaq was illustrating, I’m simply going with the first one. If I were to come to the table with both, then I’m in the same situation as calling a multiple foul: very unpopular.
Like the multiple, technically it might be the correct call, but unless they are whopper fouls, I think it is wise to go with the first only, IMHO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Snaq, wouldn’t this be a false-multiple? Not that I would ever call that either.

I’ve seen a number of multiple fouls, but never seen one called. I’ve never heard any complaint because the multiple-fouls weren’t called.

Same victim, time difference is less than one second. I think this qualifies as "approximately the same time" and thus a multiple foul. I think that's the intent of the rule here, but I could be wrong. I'll have to review the definition tonight when I get home, though.

And I've never seen this called whether it was a false multiple or a multiple. Typically the official goes with either the first contact or the more severe contact.