FTs or no FTs

[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