FTs or no FTs

[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.