Administering a false multiple

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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?

My point is that the exception in 4-19-2 has to be referring to 4-19-10, and that you (and yes, bob) are reading too much into the location of the words "by an opponent" in 4-19-10. Both of the other exceptions in that clause refer to defined categories of fouls; why would this be different?

I will add that some guidance from the powers would be nice on situations where you absolutely cannot determine which foul happened first. Something similar to the ruling for multiple fouls would be nice, to be honest.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is that the exception in 4-19-2 has to be referring to 4-19-10, and that you (and yes, bob) are reading too much into the location of the words "by an opponent" in 4-19-10.

And my point is that 4-19-2 is totally irrelevant from the git-go because it very specifically does NOT apply to common fouls that are part of a false multiple fouls. Simultaneous and multiple fouls, yes. False multiple fouls, no. 'Tis that simple.

You have a situation that only meets the definition criteria of a false multiple foul as defined in 4-19-12. We have a rule .....rule 10 PENALTIES: (Rule 10 Summary) #7 that says that each foul of a false multiple foul carries it's own penalty. If one or both of the penalties are 1/1, apply 'em.

What we don't have is any rules direction as to how we should handle false multiple fouls that occur at approximately the same time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What we don't have is any rules direction as to how we should handle false multiple fouls that occur at approximately the same time.

This is all that's really needed, IMO. Hopefully our esteemed member with connections in the clouds will again provide a thread we can use to submit rule changes.

[deecee]

why in the hell would a team who had 2 players fouled at the same time and in the bonus NOT get free throws? that is the complete opposite to and common sense.

i would penalize in order of harshness - the foul that carries the lowest penalty first and so on.