Double Foul tonight during Boys' C-Squad

[chseagle]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by chseagle

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?

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

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

[chseagle]

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.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

[just another ref]

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

Keep looking.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[doubleringer]

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.

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...

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by chseagle

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

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.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by chseagle

so the AP should of been used.

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

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by chseagle

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.

POI.

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.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.