Situation:
A1 grabs B1 while B1 is in the act of shooting. B1 dosen't get the shot off and retaliates by swinging an elbow at A1, but missing A1 completely.
Watta ya got?

A. Simultaneous fouls. Alt. possesion arrow throw-in at the division line.

B. Simutaneous fouls. Alt. possesion arrow throw-in at the spot of the fouls.

C. False Double Foul. Shoot em' in the order they happened. Cleared lanes (1st foul shooting foul...2nd foul "T" for unsportsmanlike conduct.) A1's ball at division line opposite the table.

D. Shooting foul only. Ignore B1's violation since it was a dead ball.

E. Wipe out both fouls...none toward the bonus...and flip a coin to see who gets the ball.

Dude

Should be "C". They must be false since one is a personal and one is a technical.

Mark correct me if i'm wrong but why can't it be two seperate fouls.The shooting foul happened first then the tech with the ball dead.I'm not positive just asking.

I changed the situation slightly. Now watta you got?

PS-I agree with Mr. Padgett on the original sitch.False double foul-PF followed by T.

Good change of the situation...but I gotta tell ya...I got the same thing...only B1 shoots one FT instead of two.

No player control foul since there was no contact...but still an unsportsmanlike act with the swinging of the elbow in retaliation, if in my judgment it was not severe enough to warrant the "T", then I could hit B1 with a violation, for swinging his elbow.
(Note to self: better know how to administer this if I call the latter.)

I could also ignore the swinging of the elbow.

Hmmmmmm, if I go with the foul and the violation....shoot the FT and continue the game from there...just as if there had been no violation.
Good questions arise from these situations...what would you do, or how would you administer it, if your partner called any one of these above?

Dude

No player control foul since there was no contact...but still an unsportsmanlike act with the swinging of the elbow in retaliation, if in my judgment it was not severe enough to warrant the "T", then I could hit B1 with a violation, for swinging his elbow.
(Note to self: better know how to administer this if I call the latter.)

Hmmmmmm, if I go with the foul and the violation....shoot the FT and continue the game from there...just as if there had been no violation.
[/B][/QUOTE]Hmmmmmm?? You sure? :D

....Nope. ;)

Dude
P.S. But I'm pretty sure I could sell it...No, I'm really sure I could sell it. :D

[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 5th, 2003 at 06:42 AM]

Could you sell it to a coach that knows the penalty in R9-13 for elbow swinging without contact reads "the ball is dead when the violation occurs.."? :D

Violation for swinging the elbow causes the ball to become dead immediately. Thus, the basket can't count.

The situation is the same as a foul on the shooter followed by BI or GT by the offense.

Shoot two throws for the foul on the shooter. Continue play as normal after the second throw.

.....ahhhhh yes! You are correct, Thanks!
A violation does "kill" the ball. It's dead when the violation occurs...silly me.

This is the same as if there was a basket interference by the offense...the violation makes the play dead, thus if the ball goes through the hoop after the violation, it does not count.
Also, during a FT if the ball is in the air and a teammate of the shooter "violates" it kills the ball, thus no basket even if the ball goes in.
Very good, thanks guys. ;)

Dude

Not sure I understand your question. It is a false double foul created by two separate fouls. Shoot the personal, then the T, followed by A getting the ball for a throw-in at the division line.

Take a look at 4-18-1. The action of B1 could also be deemed fighting and therefore a flagrant foul, which carries an ejection. Since you said that B1 doesn't get the shot off the ball is dead, and therefore this is a flagrant technical foul.
JR, in your version of the play, I'll add that if B1 is charged with a technical foul (flagrant or not) the ball does not become dead immediately and the basket counts. I know you know this, but since no one else wrote it, I'm posting it in case some newer official reads the thread.

[Edited by nevadaref on Jan 6th, 2003 at 04:00 AM]

Nevadaref...actually I did post something similar to what you are saying...it's up there somewhere.;)

I liked the twist JR gave with the violation instead of the "T" and the ball going in, this showed us that the ball would become dead with the violation and therefore the basket would not count.

In your scenario, with B1 being ejected, he wouldn't get to shoot his FT's, the substitute would.

Dude

[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 6th, 2003 at 06:49 AM]

It is, that is why it is called a "FALSE" double foul.