Administering a false multiple

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The first isn't defined, and I agree it doesn't meet the definition of the second.

I'm not following that a Simultaneous Foul is not defined. 4-19-10. And it definitely is not this OP.

I agree that it is a False Multiple Foul. If each foul carries it's own penalty, then we should penalize them independently as if the other one did not happen. In the OP, I think that would be A1 shoots the FTs for B1's foul (lane cleared) and spot throw in for team A for B2's foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1)There's no definition of "simultaneous foul." So, we have to use the common definition of "happening at the same time."

2) If fouls happen at the same time, then they aren't common fouls, and no bonus is shot.

3)Yes. Shoot two for the shooting foul. Ball inbounds for the non-shooting foul.

1) But there is a definition of a false multiple foul and this play meets that definition imo. It sureasheck doesn't meet the definition of a double foul or simultaneous foul. Why would we penalize it the same as those?

2) Rules reference? That's not what the penalty for a false multiple foul states. that rule states that each foul carries it's own penalty.

3) Aren't you just basically picking the shooting foul as occurring first then and penalizing it that way?

As I said, I can't really see any other way using the definitions and penalties that we have but to decide which foul came first and then administer the appropriate penalties that way.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I'm not following that a Simultaneous Foul is not defined. 4-19-10. And it definitely is not this OP.

4-19-10 "A simultaneous foul (personal or technical) by opponents is a situation ..."

Note that this is NOT the same as

"A simultaneous foul is a situation in which opponents ..."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Note also that the definition section does not describe a "simultaneous" foul, only a "simultaneous foul by opponents." An important disctinction.

I have to disagree.

A simultaneous foul (personal or technical) by opponents is a situation in which there is a foul by both teams which occurs at approximately the same time, but are not committed by opponents against each other.

B1 fouling A1 and B2 fouling A2 is not a simultaneous foul situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I have to disagree.

A simultaneous foul (personal or technical) by opponents is a situation in which there is a foul by both teams which occurs at approximately the same time, but are not committed by opponents against each other.

B1 fouling A1 and B2 fouling A2 is not a simultaneous foul situation.

That was my take also.

The only definition that I'm aware of that can be made to fit is that of a false multiple foul. And I'm not aware of any ruling that tells us definitively how to administer false multiple fouls when both fouls comprising it occur at basically the exact same time.

Good question by Scrappy but imo there really isn't a definitive answer rules-wise re: the order that we should administer the fouls.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

4-19-10 "A simultaneous foul (personal or technical) by opponents is a situation ..."

Note that this is NOT the same as

"A simultaneous foul is a situation in which opponents ..."

Bob, I follow you now. There is no definition for simultaneous foul but there is a definition for Simultaneous Foul by Opponents.

So in the OP, since there is not a definiton for Simutaneous Foul by Teammates, it is merely personal fouls that happen simultaneously. Which by definition 4-19-2, cannot be a Common foul. And therefore, 4-8-1 prohibits us from shooting Bonus FT's.

I am not sure what to make of this. This all makes sense but there is no way I could have thought this out while on the court.

I am going to have to ponder this a little longer before I give the "Always listen to Bob" line.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Bob, I follow you now. There is no definition for simultaneous foul but there is a definition for Simultaneous Foul by Opponents.

So in the OP, since there is not a definiton for Simutaneous Foul by Teammates, it is merely personal fouls that happen simultaneously. Which by definition 4-19-2, cannot be a Common foul. And therefore, 4-8-1 prohibits us from shooting Bonus FT's.

I am not sure what to make of this. This all makes sense but there is no way I could have thought this out while on the court.

I am going to have to ponder this a little longer before I give the "Always listen to Bob" line.

Using this same logic, if both fouls were non-shooting fouls and it was fouls 8 and 9, and we are treating them as fouls that occur simultaneously . . . we would not shoot FTs for either foul.

Am I still thinking clearly?

[letemplay]

Just wonder who decides these fouls occurred exactly at the same time? The whistles? It's got to be two different officials, the guy with eye on the shooter is not going to see something down under AT THE SAME TIME. Unlike a blarge where we've got two different whistles and signals, here we've got two whistles where it is ok to determine, at least, which one may have happened first. I think as someone else said, go with the shooting foul first and the pushing for position foul second. Pretty clear in my view. Are we not overthinking this? Woody has name for that, I believe.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Are we not overthinking this? Woody has name for that, I believe.

I'm sure I am. But as I've said before, it is my favorite way to learn. Until overthinking this, I hadn't thought about shooting Bonus FT's for Common Fouls only.

Got a game and have to go. Can't wait to get back to overthinking though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Just wonder who decides these fouls occurred exactly at the same time? The whistles? It's got to be two different officials, the guy with eye on the shooter is not going to see something down under AT THE SAME TIME. Unlike a blarge where we've got two different whistles and signals, here we've got two whistles where it is ok to determine, at least, which one may have happened first. I think as someone else said, go with the shooting foul first and the pushing for position foul second. Pretty clear in my view. Are we not overthinking this? Woody has name for that, I believe.

So, you have no way of knowing which happened first, and you're just going to arbitrarily choose the harsher order? I agree with using all the information available (including the table if needed) to determine which happened first, but if you can't, you have to penalize as if they happened at the same time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Bob, I follow you now. There is no definition for simultaneous foul but there is a definition for Simultaneous Foul by Opponents.

So in the OP, since there is not a definiton for Simutaneous Foul by Teammates, it is merely personal fouls that happen simultaneously. Which by definition 4-19-2, cannot be a Common foul. And therefore, 4-8-1 prohibits us from shooting Bonus FT's.

I am not sure what to make of this. This all makes sense but there is no way I could have thought this out while on the court.

I am going to have to ponder this a little longer before I give the "Always listen to Bob" line.

Yup, personal fouls that happened simultaneously and were committed by teammates on two different opponents. Ponder the fact that the only foul definition that fits that situation is a false multiple foul. It can't be a simultaneous foul because it doesn't meet the rules criteria of 4-19-10. And note that as already cited each foul of a false multiple carries it's own penalty....and the penalty for one foul of a false multiple foul could be a 1/1.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Using this same logic, if both fouls were non-shooting fouls and it was fouls 8 and 9, and we are treating them as fouls that occur simultaneously . . . we would not shoot FTs for either foul.

Am I still thinking clearly?

By rules definition you can't treat them as a simultaneous foul though. That's the point. The only rules definition that fits is a false multiple foul, and if you penalize each foul seperately by rule you would be shooting 2 sets of 1/1's in your situation above. And the calling officials would still have to decide which fouled player shot first()

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Bob, I follow you now. There is no definition for simultaneous foul but there is a definition for Simultaneous Foul by Opponents.

So in the OP, since there is not a definiton for Simutaneous Foul by Teammates, it is merely personal fouls that happen simultaneously. Which by definition 4-19-2, cannot be a Common foul. And therefore, 4-8-1 prohibits us from shooting Bonus FT's.

I am not sure what to make of this. This all makes sense but there is no way I could have thought this out while on the court.

I am going to have to ponder this a little longer before I give the "Always listen to Bob" line.

Well, I am mostly just playing devil's advocate. It's not really covered (i.e., 2-3) and since mbryon (I think) responded one way, I thought I'd see if the other way would work.

I seem to recall that Simultaneous Foul by Opponents was relatively recently added to the book. Before that, if A1 fouled B2 at the same time that B3 fouled A4, it was a false double foul, but there was no guidance as to what to do (who shoots first? who gets to inbound the ball?). The definition and POI ruling was added.

Some stat-head can answer whether in a typical HS game the "value" of a 1-1 FT is more or less than the value of a posession. I think they are relatively close. So, unless this happens at the very end of a close game, I don't think it matters much.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, personal fouls that happened simultaneously and were committed by teammates on two different opponents. Ponder the fact that the only foul definition that fits that situation is a false multiple foul. It can't be a simultaneous foul because it doesn't meet the rules criteria of 4-19-10. And note that as already cited each foul of a false multiple carries it's own penalty....and the penalty for one foul of a false multiple foul could be a 1/1.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

By rules definition you can't treat them as a simultaneous foul though. That's the point. The only rules definition that fits is a false multiple foul, and if you penalize each foul seperately by rule you would be shooting 2 sets of 1/1's in your situation above. And the calling officials would still have to decide which fouled player shot first()

I think we all agree it is a False Multiple Foul. And we all agree that, in case of a False Multiple Foul, each foul carries its own penalty.

The problem is, 4-8-1 defines Bonus Free Throw (with exceptions) as the second FT awarded for a Common Foul. 4-19-2 says that simultaneous fouls (the ones not defined) are not Common Fouls. Therefore, there are no FTs awarded for these fouls because they are not Common Fouls.

I am not convinced this is the intent of these rules, but I can't convince myself otherwise (yet) either. This is one of those situations where things just don't match up for me.

This is also the point where some people say, rules, ruelz and paralysis by analysis (or something close to that), but right now, I am having conflict with the rule set. And the rule set (NFHS) seems to be telling me that we cannot shoot Bonus FTs for any fouls that are not Common Fouls. For the time being, I am saying, Demz Da Rulz!

In addition, leave out the argument about common sense and one foul happened before the other etc.. We all get that. Even if one happpened before the other, doesn't that leave you with a dead ball contact foul? Out of the pan into the fire!

Wow, how is that for playing Devil's Advocate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Even if one happpened before the other, doesn't that leave you with a dead ball contact foul? Out of the pan into the fire!

There are plenty of times when a foul does not cause the ball to become dead.