Administering a false multiple

[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()