FTs or no FTs

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This brings a question: Coach A and Coach B get popped for simultaneously mouthing off to officials. Is this a double foul, or a false double? They're not committed against each other.

As JR just said, it is a simultaneous foul, which is by definition a false double foul. I am not about to climb up into a cold attic when I have to get ready to make a courier run tonight but JR has in his possession the same ancient texts that I own, which has a Case Book Play that defines a simultaneous foul as a false double foul. Back then each foul carried its own penalty, just like a double TF did and the ball was put back into play with a jump ball, just like in a double TF. Now all we do is charge the fouls and go to the Point of Interruption.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

As JR just said, it is a simultaneous foul, which is by definition a false double foul.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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???

The Casebook Play I am referencing is from the late 1970's before the NBCofUS&C split into the NFHS Rules Committee and the NCAA Rules Committee.

The original definition of a Double Foul was A1 and B1 committed personal fouls against each other at approximately the sametime. The definition of a False Double Foul (FDF) has not changed in over forty (40) years (which predates the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees) for both NFHS and NCAA (from the 2010-11 NFHS Rules Book R4-S19-A9): "A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls by both teams, the second of which occurs before the clock is started following the first, and such that at least one of the attributes of a double foul is absent."

What are the attributes of a Double Foul:
1) A1 commits a PF against B1.
2) B1 commits a PF against A1.
3) A1 and B1's PF's occur at the same time.

That is why a DTF is a FDF; the second foul (it doesn't matter which on you chose) occured before the clock started following the first and at least one of the attributes of a DF is absent. The same applies for a Simultaneous Foul (SF). The Casebook Play from the late 1970's had B1 commiting a PF against A1, while A2 was commiting a PF against B2, with both teams in the bonus. Back then the fouls in a FDF were penalized in the order that they occured, BUT since the fouls were simultaneous, the correct way to resume play was with a Jump Ball. The Casebook Play stated that SF's are a FDF and since the definition of FDF has not changed since then SF's are still FDF'S.

The reason that DTF's were added under the DF definition and the penalty for a DTF was made the same as a DPF (no free throws; personally I do not have a problem with no free throws for a DTF because it speeds up the game) was because too many officials didn't remember their definition of DF. They forgot that a DTF is nothing more that a SF and a FDF. And since FDF's are penalized in the order that they occur, the correct way to put the ball back into play was by a Jump Ball (AP now).

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.

All I ask is that you do not ask me to climb up into the attic until this summer when it is warmer.

I had just finished my paper work from my courier run last night when I decided to check the Forum and I am going to bed now, because as NevadaRef would say, I need my beauty sleep, .

MTD, Sr.

[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?

[bob jenkins]

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???

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.

[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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

As JR just said, it is a simultaneous foul, which is by definition a false double foul. I am not about to climb up into a cold attic when I have to get ready to make a courier run tonight but JR has in his possession the same ancient texts that I own, which has a Case Book Play that defines a simultaneous foul as a false double foul. Back then each foul carried its own penalty, just like a double TF did and the ball was put back into play with a jump ball, just like in a double TF. Now all we do is charge the fouls and go to the Point of Interruption.

MTD, Sr.

Say what? A simultaneous foul isn't and never has been a false double foul afaik. In a false double foul, you penalize in the order that the fouls occur.

Methinks you mis-remembered what happened long ago....

We had a big argument years ago over on McGriffs about this one. At that time, only simultaneous technical fouls were covered in rule 4. Simultaneous personal fouls were covered in rule 6-3-3(g) at that time but didn't have a penalty reference attached. The whole world minus 1 person said that the penalties for a simultaneous personal foul should be the exact same as the one listed for a simultaneous technical foul---> no FT's and go to AP at that time. Before the AP, by rule we had a jump ball for both simultaneous personal and technical fouls with no FT's. That one person...YOU....tried to argue that it should be a false double foul instead and the officials had to decide which foul came first and then penalize them in order. Well, the next year....2002-03... the FED added a coda to 4-19-9 that included simultaneous personal fouls with simultaneous technical fouls with both having the same penalty.

Remember now?

From an ancient text....

COMMENTS ON THE 2002-03 RULES REVISIONS:
DEFINITION OF A SIMULTANEOUS PERSONAL FOUL ADDED (4-19-9): The definition of a simultaneous personal foul was added to the existing definition of a simultaneous technical foul. Simultaneous personal fouls were referenced in Rule 6-3-3g and in the NFHS Handbook, but were not defined in rule 4. This addition provided consistency in rule terminology and penalty administration.

Again fwiw, a simultanous foul has never been a false double foul under the rules afaik and I've never heard of a case play that said different.

Not that anyone really cares.....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? A simultaneous foul isn't and never has been a false double foul afaik. In a false double foul, you penalize in the order that the fouls occur.

Methinks you mis-remembered what happened long ago....

We had a big argument years ago over on McGriffs about this one. At that time, only simultaneous technical fouls were covered in rule 4. Simultaneous personal fouls were covered in rule 6-3-3(g) at that time but didn't have a penalty reference attached. The whole world minus 1 person said that the penalties for a simultaneous personal foul should be the exact same as the one listed for a simultaneous technical foul---> no FT's and go to AP at that time. Before the AP, by rule we had a jump ball for both simultaneous personal and technical fouls with no FT's. That one person...YOU....tried to argue that it should be a false double foul instead and the officials had to decide which foul came first and then penalize them in order. Well, the next year....2002-03... the FED added a coda to 4-19-9 that included false double personal fouls also with both having the same penalty.

Remember now?

From an ancient text....

COMMENTS ON THE 2002-03 RULES REVISIONS:
DEFINITION OF A SIMULTANEOUS PERSONAL FOUL ADDED (4-19-9): The definition of a simultaneous personal foul was added to the existing definition of a simultaneous technical foul. Simultaneous personal fouls were referenced in Rule 6-3-3g and in the NFHS Handbook, but were not defined in rule 4. This addition provided consistency in rule terminology and penalty administration.

Again fwiw, a simultanous foul has never been a false double foul under the rules afaik and I've never heard of a case play that said different.

Not that anyone really cares.....

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.

MTD, Sr.


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. Email me with said instructions at DeNucciBasketball (at) Hotmail (dot) com.

[BillyMac]

There may be an easier way to do this, but this is how I post scanned images on the Forum:

Scan your image.
Store the image in a file on your computer.
Use an online photo storage website (I use Flickr, I get it free with my internet service, there may be some other free sites) to download your image from your computer file to the photo storage website.
Once posted on said website, right click your image, click on Properties, Highlight, and Save the URL address of the image.
Go back to the Forum and post the image like you would any other image, using the Image icon (mountain scene) and the image's URL address.

[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.