Administering a false multiple

[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

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()

[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.

[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.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Agreed. And (without looking) I think they all involve shooting.

But I was really referring to the arguments as in posts 22 and 23, not wanting to go down the road of one before the other. This discussion is only fun if they happen simultaneously.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Agreed. And (without looking) I think they all involve shooting.

But I was really referring to the arguments as in posts 22 and 23, not wanting to go down the road of one before the other. This discussion is only fun if they happen simultaneously.

Ah, I see your point.
I say compromise; let the fouled team pick their shooter for two shots with the rebounders lined up. Most coaches would take this over 1+1 for whichever two players were fouled.
Or, let the coach decide which of the two fouled players gets two shots.

[Kelvin green]

First, I just dont believe that two fouls on the floor happened exactly the same time. The likely hood that in this cosmos that these two happened at the exact same time is akin to me winning the Maga Lottery- winning the 355 million dollars and treating all the long time members to a staek dinner.

Each carries its own penalty,( if it were a pure multiple foul it is easy as the book is clear on how to handle those)

I think you still have to determine which happened first, since "Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred.+ (8-7)

So lets play out a couple of scenarios:

1) If the rebound foul happens first (although I really question how a rebound foul happens first before a foul is shot) and there is no 1+1
-Penalty for rebound foul is OOB
-Penalty for shooting foul is 1/2/3 shots
In this case the team loses the penalty for the rebound foul and the offense shoots 1/2/3 shots and we play on.

(My personal comment is if we have this one in my game we will most likely decide that the rebounding/jostling foul happened before the shooter was in the act of shooting and just go with the rebound foul and call it good)

2) Rebound foul happens first and there is a 1+1 situation and shooter is in act of shooting and fouled
- rebound foul is 1+1 with lane cleared
- shooting foul is 1/2/3 shots and play on.
-Shoot 2 shots and A gets ball back because you have to whack the coach because we are shooting 1+1, awarding Team A 3 points on the made shot and awarding a another FT for the foul (potential 5-6 point play)
-Your partner whacks the coach cause he's pissed now and you now have another two shots

3) Shooting foul happens first and no 1+1
-Shoot 1/2/3 shots with lane cleared
-Team gets ball back for rebound foul
-Shoot 2 shots and A gets ball back because you have to whack the coach because it is a potential 5-6 point play
-Your partner whacks the coach cause he's pissed now and you now have another two shots


4) Shooting foul first and team is in 1+1
-Shoot 1/2/3 for the shooting foul
-Shoot 1+1 for the rebound foul
-Shoot 2 shots and A gets ball back because you have to whack the coach because it is a potential 5-6 point play.
-Your partner whacks the coach cause he's pissed now and you now have another two shots

The rebound foul has got to be pretty hard here for me to go to this one as well...

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and getting together and discussing this wil solve lots of problems... Unless for sure the videotape is going to show the rebound jostling happened during the act of shooting I think my error would be call the off ball call and kill the play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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 Rules!

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.

JR's point is this is not a simultaneous foul. 4-19-2 refers to the "defined" simultaneous fouls, not the "undefined" ones (whatever those are). Just because two fouls happen simultaneously doesn't mean they're defined as simultaneous fouls; any more than fouling someone intentionally means it's an intentional foul (by definition).

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

JR's point is this is not a simultaneous foul. 4-19-2 refers to the "defined" simultaneous fouls, not the "undefined" ones (whatever those are). Just because two fouls happen simultaneously doesn't mean they're defined as simultaneous fouls; any more than fouling someone intentionally means it's an intentional foul (by definition).

Let me start by saying Bob lead me down this road. But since I am driving recklessly down this road; there is no (NFHS) defined "Simultaneous Foul". There is a defined "Simultaneous Foul by Opponents", 4-19-10.

So any fouls committed simultaneously by teammates would fit into the undefined simultaneous fouls. These undefined simultaneous fouls are the ones that are not considered Common Fouls, 4-19-2. Which brings us back to 4-8-1.

I would bet my last dollar, in my pocket, that 4 out of 5 of us would rule the same when dealing with the OP. But the wording in 4-19-10 has got me (over)thinking about the Fed's intent.

Snaqs, thanks for playing along in this discussion, but isn't it really late MT?