Administering a false multiple
 

This didn't happen to me, thankfully, but apparently it actually did happen in a high school game in a neighboring state.

A1 jumps to release a 3-point try. Simultaneously, B1 fouls A1 in the act of shooting and B2 fouls A2 while trying to get rebounding position.

At the start of the play, Team B had 5 team fouls in the half. Since it's a false multiple, each foul carries its own penalty. Should there be a 1-and-1 shot in this situation by A2, since the team foul total is now 7? Or do we simply give A1 his free throw(s) for the shooting foul and then give the ball back to Team A?

In other words, we have to penalize both fouls; but do we penalize B2's foul as if it were the 6th team foul or as if it were the 7th team foul? Keeping in mind that they happened simultaneously, according to the official who told me the story.

I'm penalizing the shooting foul first, since the other way doesn't make sense. Then, the pushing foul becomes the 7th, and we shoot 1 & 1.

FT's for the first foul should be shot with the lane cleared.

Did you say simultaneously? If so, use A/P. I think I prefer the false multiple route that Mbyron posted.

Bonus FTs are only shot for common fouls. I think you are decribing a "simultaneous" foul (that's one example of a false multiple foul), and that's not a common foul.

So, A gets the ball back.

(IOW, the fouls are "tied" for 6th. The next foul will be the 8th.)

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

The fouls are simultaneous, agreed. This is a false multiple foul, agreed. So a common foul can be part of a false multiple foul, but not part of a simultaneous foul; and there's nothing in the rules that says a simultaneous foul must include fouls by both teams. Hmmmm.

So the penalty for the rebounding foul is simply possession of the ball after A1 shoots his/her free throw(s) with the lane spaces unoccupied?

I read the OP wrong. False multiple foul. I still like shooting the one and one for A2. If you go Bob's way with a throw in, don't have books with me, but I am sure you are not allowed to run the endline under your own basket.

Isn't Team A is retaining possession?

Yes. Team A retains possession with a throw in. I think Billy was asking if they could run the endline if A1 makes his last free throw for the shooting foul. Is that right?

Had similar play last night except basket by A1 was good. Gave one shot to A1 and 1+1 to A2. Can't use a/p after this, what if it was in B's direction? Wouldn't make sense for B to have ball after committing a foul. (maybe that's the part you misread in o/p)

A can never run the end-line (legally) in the play described.

Nice Catch, Thanks ...
 

Sorry. I was thinking false double, not false mutiple.

Correct, I just don't have the book handy to quote a rule number.

This sounds right to me.

Can you justify that by rule though?

The play described meets the definition of a false multiple foul as per 4-19-12. It doesn't meet the rules definition of either a simultaneous foul or a multiple foul. And rule 10: PENALTIES: (Rule 10 Summary) #5 on a false multiple foul states that each foul carries it's own penalty. Shouldn't we be trying to penalize both of these fouls by using those rules? You're not really penalizing the foul on the shooter if you ignore that foul. You're assessing one penalty for two fouls.

I can't see any rules justification for having a tie and going to the POI. There is no mention in 4-36-1 of a false multiple foul being applicable.

And yes, I realize that there is a gray area in the rules of which foul to penalize first. But I think the officials have to get together and make that decision.

Thoughts?

Yes.

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

Nor can I. That's why I didn't advocate going to POI.

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.

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.

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 ..."

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.

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. :)

I hate quoting myself
 

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? :confused:

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.

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. :D

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.

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.

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(:D)

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.

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. :cool:

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

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).

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. :D

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.

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? :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.