FTs or no FTs

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The OP was two technical fouls.

Missed that. But in my defense, it still can't be a double technical foul by rule because the technical foouls weren't commited against each other...as I stated above.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

There is a Casebook Play from the mid- to late-1970's (the ancient text to which I refer and you even pre-date me on this, ) that states that a SF is a FDF. If either or both fouls resulted in the penalty being the awarding of FT's, the FT's were shot and the ball put back into play via a Jump Ball because the fouls occured at the same time. The only thing that the rule changed from the original Casebook Play was to eliminate the FT's.

P.S. I guess I am going to have to climb up into the attic after all, scan the Casebook Play onto my hard drive and then hope that somebody will email me with instructions as to how to attach the scan to the Forum.

It doesn't predate me, Mark. Sorry, but I don't buy that. Simultaneous fouls were always differentiated in the rules as being different than a false double foul for the exact reason that Bob gave you. Simultaneous fouls occur at approximately at the same time. For false double fouls, there is a time lag between the fouls. And simultaneous fouls resulted in a jump ball until the rule changed to an AP. Never been any different afaik going back to 1959.

Start climbing and good luck finding something to back what you say up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The orginal Casebook Play from the late 1970's was discussed quite a bit in a thread on this Forum a couple of years ago and the result was the definition of a SF added to the Rules Book with it having the same penalty as DPF and DTF; the key being that no free throws are shot and the ball is put back into play via Point of Interruption (which could be via AP). This really did not change the original Casebook Play with regard to using the AP, except free throws are not longer shot. This was the ruling that I gave during the thread and the addition of the SF definition to the Rules Book supported my ruling; it is a shame though that the people that are responsible for these rulings at the NFHS and NCAA would take the time to do the research, they would have found the Casebook Play that I referenced and would have only tweaked the original Casebook Play to eliminate the free throws.

Gee, that ain't my recollection of this argument - held both here and on McGriffs back around 2001. Iirc you were the only person that insisted that a simultaneous personal fouls were really a false double foul and had to be penalized in order with FT's being shot. Everybody else unanimously said that simultaneous personal fouls should be treated exactly like simultaneous technical fouls, with no FT's taken and an AP. And a few months later, the FED issued the rule clarification cited by me below that said you were wrong and the rest of the world was right.

And as I've already said, I've never heard of that case play either. Simultaneous fouls of any kind have never been a false double foul to my best recollection. They can't possibly be because their basic definitions are completely different.

And to also sum up again, does anybody really care anyway?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Missed that. But in my defense, it still can't be a double technical foul by rule because the technical foouls weren't commited against each other...as I stated above.

I agree. Just had to point how old you're getting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I agree. Just had to point how old you're getting.

Old? Moi? Gee, did I say anything when you turned

50?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't part of the definition of false double foul that one of the fouls occurs AFTER the other....which can't be simultaneous???

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, just that one of the attributes of a double foul is missing. Since the double foul includes "at approximately the same time", one after the other would meet the "missing' requirement.

What about this?

the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Old? Moi? Gee, did I say anything when you turned

50?

I'm just glad that you guys are around so that I can feel young.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm just glad that you guys are around so that I can feel young.

Shut up.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Shut up.

Season 24 for me. I still feel young. Of course, I just turned 18 when I worked my first HS (freshman/JV) game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Season 24 for me. I still feel young. Of course, I just turned 18 when I worked my first HS (freshman/JV) game.

This is my thirtieth year. I started when I was, um, let's see, nine years old, so that makes me, um, let's see, thirty-nine. Yeah, that's right. Thirty-nine. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Season 24 for me. I still feel young. Of course, I just turned 18 when I worked my first HS (freshman/JV) game.

Season 52 for me. Same for football. I just turned 17 when I did my first HS varsity basketball game. And I was 16 when I did my first HS varsity football game. I looked a lot older though. Different world back then. You got thrown right into the fire.

I still feel young until I try to get up.

Enjoy it, Rich. You'll miss it when you (inevitably) will have to dial it back.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by billymac

shut up.

+1

[tref]

Thanks all

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I became a basketball official shortly after my 20th birthday in November 1971, that makes the 2010-11 season my 40th season as a basketball official. Mark, Jr., was 17 and a senior in high school when he became a basketball official in November 2007. Dang do I feel old.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dang do I feel old.

That's because you are old.