So back to how you sagacious officials surreptitiously go about obtaining the information on the number of fouls a player has? Do any of you have any bits of knowledge you've collected over the years on how to do so?

On the list of top-10 things to worry about, this is number 20.

I do try to be aware so we get the player replaced if / when s/he commits the fifth foul.

And, like someone else mentioned, if I can't tell which foul came first, and one player has 4, and that player is the star player on a team losing by a lot late in the game, I might try to not rub salt in the wound by giving the foul to the other player.

It may not be in the book, but this awareness is clearly preferred by some assigners and vets who have influence over assignments.

That's all cool, and I don't have a problem with anything you've said in this post.

However, this brings us back to the real-world issue. B1 and B2 both foul A1 at approximately the same time. B1 has 4 fouls, B2 has 1. It looks like B2 fouled first, so you ignore B1's foul, since it wasn't intentional or flagrant, and report the foul on B2. No problem here. Where I have the problem is you appear to be saying you see B1 foul first, but you choose to give the foul to B2 just to keep B1 in the game. Is that correct?

? Where are you seeing this? If I said that it must have been a mis-type.

So true

From your post:
You only mentioned that the number of fouls each player had determined which player got assigned the foul. Why should that matter?

???

You said:

I said:

So I don't see what you're getting at.

Ok, here's what I'm getting at. Going back to your first post in this thread, which I quoted again, you mentioned you would charge or not charge a foul on a player solely based on the number of fouls they currently have. You also then mentioned this is called "game management". What I'm trying to determine is under what specific circumstances this would come into play for you.

If you would not call a multiple foul (which I would not as well), then you need to determine which player fouled first. Obviously if the player with the lesser number fouled first, they get charged with the foul. Bob mentioned a specific scenario where you are truly unsure which player fouled, and the game is decided, you might charge the player with the lesser number. But if you are saying you see the player with the larger number foul first, but because there's another player close by that can be charged instead to avoid fouling someone out, I do have a big problem with that. That is manipulation, rather than management.

Based on the merit of this quote alone (all other posts aside) I would agree that this is a resonable way to determine one from the other.

Good post (with proper grammar). ;)

I agree.

I am efforting

I'm not saying that, and I never said that.

fiasco:

What does the definition of a legal screen have to do with this thread?

MTD, Sr.

Note that were not talking about ignoring a foul...but who to call it on when two players foul at about the same time. In the event of two players committing a foul at the same time and short of calling a multiple foul (which is NOT advised by anyone that I've ever heard), the official must decide which of the players to call a foul on. While you will not find a case play or rule telling you to not call it on the one with 4, you will also not find a rule or case supporting calling it on the one with 4 (vs. the other player) either. So, the official is basically left to make their own choice by whatever criteria they wish. Maybe you tag the guy that's been a jerk all game. Absent that, maybe you tag the one with fewer fouls (if you happen to know that). It doesn't really matter which one you tag with the foul by whatever criteria you deem valid. We have several times in a game where the play is 50/50 and you either call the foul or you don't call the foul. This is just another of those choices.