Got to watch a game, for a change. Sitch during 4th quarter occured. Fed. Boys HS.
Team A in bonus. Common foul by team B.
B1 objects to official with profanity and assessed T.
A1 then pipes in and whack, another T.
Officials huddle for an incredible 13 minutes and come to this conclusion:
Clear the lane - fouled player A1 shoots bonus/alternating possession ensues.
Good? Bad? Ugly?

I will go with the bad and the ugly! This definitely doesn't fall under the double technical foul definition 4-19-7b. They should have cleared the lane and shot the fouls in the order they occurred. Now I agree with going to the possession arrow, rule 8-1-10, as to who gets the ball since there was a technical against both teams. I hope A1 got some choice words from the coach after that bonehead move. Cost the team possibly two points on the free throws and the ball.

Would this be similar to a Flagrant by Team A followed by a T for Team B? In that case you would administer in the order they occured. It would seem to me in this situation that Team A shots the common fouls followed by the T. Then Team B would shoot the T and receive the ball out of bounds WITHOUT going to the arrow. The T by team A would negate their receiving the ball at mid court.
This would seem to be the way to handle it in order of occurence under NF rules. NCAA would be different with POI inbounds after the two "T"'s.

In my opinion what they did was GOOD! Let's take a look at the big picture. Foul, Technical, Technical! (same dead ball sequence)

In this situation if you assess double technical fouls you are not hurting the game. The foul shots are award for the foul that occured. In the BIG PICTURE, the technical fouls mean nothing. If we were to shoot them it would be nothing but a waste of time. Sometimes officiating to pure can do nothing but complicate the game.

I tend to agree with fletch.. but.. still pondering.

There's only two ways that you could possibly call this,IMO:
1)If you call the 2 T's "simultaneous technical fouls" as per 4-19-9,Team A would shoot their original bonus with the lanes clear,the FT's for the simultaneous T's would not be taken,and you'd go to to the AP.
2)Because of the time lag between the 2 T's,you decide that the two T's don't fit the definition of "simultaneous". You now take everything in order,but you count the 2 T's as being both parts of a false double foul as per R4-19-8.You now have a personal foul,FOLLOWED by a false double foul(made up of the 2 T's).You then administer everything in order that they occured.Thus, A finishes the original bonus,then A shoots 2 FT's for B's T,followed by B shooting 2 FT's for A's T,followed by B getting the ball at center because A's T happened last.

My personal preference is #2 because of the time lag between the T's and the fact that they're not really part of the same play.Also,if I remember right, there was a casebook play many,many moons ago that discussed a personal foul,followed by two more fouls-and they said that you considered the last two fouls as a false double foul by themselves.

Upon further review and..
 

checking 4-19-8&9, I believe that the "simultaneous" or "double" types of T's just do not apply.
Thanks JR -- What really stands out about the play is the time lag and seemingly unreleated fouls.

Dinosaur nailed this one..... as usual.
 

A FALSE double has shots - one situation (foul) has ended, the clock has not started, another situation (foul) occurs. This could be the case.

Double and simultaneous T's each have the same result - no shots and AP at the division line. A double foul situation would be A1 against B1 - they commit the T's against each other, not at slightly different times and not towards the referee. This was not a double foul situation. Simultaneous are not two opponents against each other but two separate fouls occurring at nearly the same time. Was it simultaneous? Maybe.

Not knowing what was said makes it difficult to say yes False double or yes simultaneous.

Were both comments about the play for which the original personal foul was called? If yes, then probably simultaneous (no shots, AP at the division line).

If there was a significant lag (like the first foul is in the process of being reported when the second one is committed). This lag could be the same case as a false double - two separate fouls with no time off the clock (both teams shoot shots and whichever team shoots the last one gets the ball at the division line. No AP).

Sounds like the officials felt it was a simultaneous foul siituation - both unsporting comments about the previous play and no significant time delay between them (JR's option # 1).

I guess that this whole discussion comes down to whether or not we deem the T's to be simultaneous or not. If they are, which when I made my post I didn't think so, we go with JR and no shots. If we don't then we have to penalize each foul on its own merits. It would then be a false double foul. Now upon further review, we don't go to the arrow, we give the ball to B on the division line for throw in since none of the paramaters are met in rule 6-3. I think in this situation, if you go with simultaneous T's then the kid who last committed the T won't get the message like he would if team A shoots two and gets the ball. It may be easier for the officials to call it simultaneous, but do the kids learn anything?

Either way, it's a false double foul. A foul occurs and another foul(s) occurs before the clock restarts. This part is a given.

The rule book really doesn't address what time limitations exist for simultaneous fouls to occur. By rule, I think you could chose either of JR's scenarios and be on solid ground.

Agreed.

I do not have my rules books in front of me but here is how this situation should have been handled.

NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules: This is a false double foul situation. First, a common foul by B1. Second, a techincal foul for unsportsmanlike conduct by B1. Third, a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct by A1.

NFHS: A1 shoots his free throws for the common foul by B1 with no one along the free throw lane. Then anyone from Team A shoots the free throws for the techincal foul by B1. Then anyone shoots the free throws for the technical foul by A1. And finally, Team B gets the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the scorer's/timer's table as part of the penalty for the technical by A1.

NCAA Men's/Women's: The technical foul penalties are point of interuption penalties. First, Team A shoots the free throws for B1's technical foul. Second, Team B shoots the free throws for A1's techncical foul. Third, A1 shoots his free throws for B1's common foul, with players lined up along the lane, with the ball remaining in play after the last of A1's free throws.

I should have added that the technical fouls by B1 and A1 are NOT simultaneous technical fouls.

Right on the mark, Mark!
Thanks

Is that a false triple foul? :D

I'm b-a-a-a-a-ack!

Chuck

'm b-a-a-a-a-ack!

Chuck [/B][/QUOTE]Weeeeeeeeell,I missed you!!
http://www.uselessgraphics.com/grumpy.gif

Chuck,
Your quip actually does have some merit because no one has yet mentioned that within the grouping of these three fouls we have a false multiple foul, since the first two fouls were both charged to Team B.

No one's mentioned it because it's the wrong answer - multiple fouls involve personal fouls, not technical fouls. (Otherwise the penalty for two T's on a team could be equal to the penalty for one T.)

But NevadaRef is correct. When B1 committed his techincal foul, that created a false multiple foul, and when A1 committed his techncial foul, that created the false double foul. This is true for both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules.

None of which means a hoot, since you simply enforce them in the order in which they occurred.

Maybe this will clear it up?
 

Did the same official give both Technical Fouls?

Because if they did, you might have a simaltaneous Technical if the official ruled that both happen at the same time.

Then my next question is, why was Team A chirping? Were they talking to the official or a player on Team B?

But without these questions being answered, it looks to me on the surface that we have a 1 & 1 shot with the lane cleared (with team A). Then we have Team A shooting the Technical Foul shots with the lane cleared of course. Finally we would have Team B shooting their T Foul shots and Team B would get the ball at the division line.

Peace

Mark,
Take a look at 4-19-10+11. In 10 it says that a multiple foul situation does have to be personal fouls, but 11 defines a FALSE multiple foul situation as just two or more fouls. To me that means they can be both personal, both technical, or a mixture of the two.

And Tony, you are right that it doesn't matter for purposes of administering the game, but for an academic rules discussion or a written test it does.

I am agreeing with you. Overall this situation is a false double foul. The first two fouls of the situation create a false multiple foul, and the third foul of the situation create a false double foul overall.

Re: Maybe this will clear it up?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
[B]Did the same official give both Technical Fouls?

2 different officials---


Then my next question is, why was Team A chirping? Were they talking to the official or a player on Team B?

They were talking to the official, but opposing player was near by.

a 13 minute huddle to make a decision on this?!

I think that might be the "ugly" part of this.

Of course, apparently it took the refs 17 minutes to review a last second shot in an NBA game Fri/Sat night.

Sorry for the confusion. I should have specified that I was directing that post to Mark DEXTER, not you MTD. Thanks for your points though. I agree with what you have written.