FTs or no FTs

tref · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 04:26pm

Saw this in a JV game last night, A1 is assessed a T & before the official reports it, team Bs coach is assessed a technical. No FTs...

In the locker room he says it was a double foul. I was thinking a false double but couldnt find anything in the casebook to support it.

Anybody?

Camron Rust · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 05:02pm

You were correct. One foul happened AFTER the other but before the clock started....that makes it a false double.

tref · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 05:06pm

Cool, any case plays though?

Scratch85 · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 05:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tref

Cool, any case plays though?

NFHS:

I don't know of any case plays. The rules reference is 4-19-9 and the penalty reference is Rule 10 penalty summary 7.

FT's are shot in the same order the fouls occured.

4.19.9C is close to your OP.

Jurassic Referee · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 05:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tref

Saw this in a JV game last night, A1 is assessed a T & before the official reports it, team Bs coach is assessed a technical. No FTs...

In the locker room he says it was a double foul. I was thinking a false double but couldnt find anything in the casebook to support it.

Anybody?

See NFHS rule 4-19-8. To have a double personal foul , you have to have 2 personal fouls. To have a double technical foul, you have to have 2 technical fouls. By that rule, you can't have a double foul that is composed of a personal foul and a technical foul. Also, that rule also said that to have a double foul, the opponents have to commit fouls against each other. In your situation, they obviously didn't.

Adam · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 06:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See NFHS rule 4-19-8. To have a double personal foul , you have to have 2 personal fouls. To have a double technical foul, you have to have 2 technical fouls. By that rule, you can't have a double foul that is composed of a personal foul and a technical foul. Also, that rule also said that to have a double foul, the opponents have to commit fouls against each other. In your situation, they obviously didn't.

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.

Jurassic Referee · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 06:10pm

Quote:

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.

Simultaneous technical fouls(4-19-10).

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 09:39pm

Quote:

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.

BktBallRef · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 17, 2010, 10:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See NFHS rule 4-19-8. To have a double personal foul , you have to have 2 personal fouls. To have a double technical foul, you have to have 2 technical fouls. By that rule, you can't have a double foul that is composed of a personal foul and a technical foul. Also, that rule also said that to have a double foul, the opponents have to commit fouls against each other. In your situation, they obviously didn't.

The OP was two technical fouls.

Camron Rust · #10 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 03:42am

Quote:

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???

Jurassic Referee · #11 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 07:46am

Quote:

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. · #12 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 08:11am

Quote:

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #13 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 08:20am

Quote:

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 · #14 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 09:04am

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.

bob jenkins · #15 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 18, 2010, 09:12am

Quote:

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.