Double Foul tonight during Boys' C-Squad
 

Had a double foul tonight during the Boys' C-Squad game. 1 was a shooting foul, the other foul was off the ball. The penalty for the shooting foul was 2 shots, with no penalty for the off the ball foul.

1 foul against each team. No AP change.

And did all this seem ok to you?

From replaying what happened, the person was in the process of shooting when they got fouled. The other foul was a push off in order to try to gain advantage off the rebound. They happened about a second between the 2 fouls.

As I saw the play, it seemed kosher the way it was called, as they did not actually happen simutaneously.

Am wondering other's opinions, as the visiting coach was thinking the AP should of been used as the POI.

They shot free throws with players lined up on the lane spaces as usual?

case book play situation
 

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 & the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Ok, I may a judgement in error on how I thought of the play as like it states above, AP should of been used as the try in flight was unsuccessful. MY BAD :(

However the shooter was allowed the 2 FTs, with no AP.

Yeah normal 2 shoot FT procedure. After reviewing the case book, the POI was the unsuccessful try, so the AP should of been used.

A double foul involves 2 fouls committed by opponents against each other.

Keep looking.

Perhaps I'm thinking of a simultaneous foul situation, instead of the double foul.

Rule 4-19-10 instead of Rule 4-19-8.

From the one post, it sounds as though the shooting foul was called slightly before the second foul. Did you think of getting together and taking one or the other (I'd personally go witht he shooter) and dropping the other? It would have cleared up alot of confusion.

He's not an official. He's just masquerading as one. :rolleyes:

what????
 

It would have cleared up the confusion right up until the coach from the defensive team got a T for wanting to know why you decided not to penalize the offense.

I think you can go with simultaneous or false double here. I would lean toward false double. It appears to be the most equitable for the situation. Penalize both in order of occurance.....

If you go simultaneous you still have some more searching to do on how it should have been handled...

Look at the one between those you have mentioned.

I disagree with Doubleringer. As I understand the OP, you have fouls by both teams at approximately the same time but not against each other (different players). Penalize both.

Dude. Please. It's "should have" or "should've."

Here's what I was referring to. Have a patient whistle. If there is a second in between the 2 fouls, either pass on the second, or call it a dead ball T.

Nothing wrong with a patient whistle but there is nothing wrong with a false double foul either. Two separate events, two separate whistles. Unless it fits as "incidental contact", no need to ignore it.

Or, in this case, it sounds like it may have happened while the shot was still in the air, so it could still be a common foul.

Why would you call it a dead ball T if the ball is still live? :rolleyes:

Only if the ball is dead. Multi-tasking here and not being incredibly clear.
:D

1 foul against gold, the other foul against red. Both happening approximately at the same time. This being the case as the two fouls are separate makes this a simultaneous foul. As the one foul was caused on a shooter, 2 FTs awarded. The other foul was an off-the-ball foul.

Each team got a foul added to their team totals. It was the red coach that argued that the possession arrow should be for them to start the next quarter (as no jump/held balls happened between the fouls & end of quarter).

The officials even were kinda stumped about the possession arrow, but I mentioned about the FT shots on that foul, & they did a mid-court conference to verify what I told them. The POI in this situation, as I see it, was the foul against the shooter (initially), the off-the-ball foul was an aftereffect of physical play. Neither team was put into the bonus by this.

So far this year, all crews in my area have been 3 man crews for Sub-V games that I have seen myself.

The ball was still in the air when the 2nd foul happened.

Sounds like you are saying the off-ball foul was after the shooting foul. Which means it should have been ignored.

That's what I was thinking, I believe the game was being recorded by one of the parents of a player, but unsure who. If I could see it again for clarification, that would help.

Another question, however, since the ball was still in the air when the off-the-ball foul happened, why ignore it?

Number 1 you are contradicting yourself......IMHO you don't have a simultaneous foul you have a false double. Penalize each foul in order of occurance (ie shoot the free throws, then since you aren't in the bonus for b give them the ball at the spot of the foul and move along)

If you insist that it is simultaneous then they should not have shot any free throws and gone to POI, which since the ball didn't go in would have led to the AP

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda ...
 

Why is mbyron allowed to have two registered usernames?

Who's the new guy/gal?
 

You can, too, Billy. But we'd all know it was you the first time "TransylvTranny" copied and pasted a paragraph from your myths.