Double Foul

[Hoosier Daddy]

During play A1 is fouled by B1 at the exact same time B2 is intentionally fouled by A2. Each foul is called. Is this situation a double foul and administered under the AP arrow? Or does the intentional carry a more severe penalty?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy
During play A1 is fouled by B1 at the exact same time B2 is intentionally fouled by A2. Each foul is called. Is this situation a double foul and administered under the AP arrow? Or does the intentional carry a more severe penalty?

I'd like to say that this is a false double simultaneous foul.The only problem is that I don't think that there is any such animal. It's a simultaneous foul of some kind,but the fouls aren't similar and carry different penalties-so they shouldn't really saw each other off.Heckuva question,H.D.-I don't think that this one is covered,to be honest.I think that what I would do is penalize it like a false double foul,with the intentional foul second.Let A1 shoot FT's if Team A is in the bonus,then let B2 shoot 2 FT's for the intentional,and then give Team B the throw-in at the closest OOB spot to where the intentional occurred.That's the most logical way to handle it,I think.

I could be completely wrong though.

[whistleblower]

I agree. If they happened at exactly the same time, then you can't ignore either one. However, if the intentional foul had happened first, then the common foul would not be penalized. If the common foul happened first, you would still penalize the intentional foul!

[pizanno]

NFHS 4-19-9 Simultaneous foul

by rule, go to the AP, No FTs...

if one happened after the other...then you have a false double foul and penalize them in the order in which they occured.

[RookieDude]

Rule 4-19-9 states ...."a foul by both teams at APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME,"...

In the situation described by Hoosier Daddy, we (my partner and I) are probably going to "see" the common foul first and then the intentional foul next. (Which btw will be a intentional technical now since it was during a dead ball)

This way we can justify administering it the way JR stated, with the exception of now giving Team B the throw-in at the division line opposite the table.

Dude

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Rule 4-19-9 states ...."a foul by both teams at APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME,"...

In the situation described by Hoosier Daddy, we (my partner and I) are probably going to "see" the common foul first and then the intentional foul next. (Which btw will be a intentional technical now since it was during a dead ball)

This way we can justify administering it the way JR stated, with the exception of now giving Team B the throw-in at the division line opposite the table.

Dude

If you decide during your pregame that you are not going to have any simultaneous fouls (if I am reading your post correctly), then why not see the intentional foul first and consider the common foul as incidental contact. This way your intentional foul is a personal foul, the player fouled will get to shoot his/her free throws and his/her team will get the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the foul.

Prior to this year, when simultaneous fouls were considered false double fouls, this his how my partners decided to handle such a situation if it were to arise because trying to explain the two fouls to two coaches who are probably not very happy with us is the the easiest thing to do.

[RookieDude]

originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci,Sr.
why not see the intentional foul first and consider the common foul as incidental contact

We could, but the way the situation was stated...with the common foul listed first, I just saw this play happening the way I stated.

originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci,Sr.
If you decide during your pregame that you are not going to have any simultaneous fouls

No, I don't pregame that we are not going to have any simultaneous fouls...again, this situation doesn't seem to fit the "normal" simultaneous foul situation...thus, my administration "thinking" on this one.

originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci,Sr.
because trying to explain the two fouls to two coaches who are probably not very happy with us is the the easiest thing to do.

Ahhhh, come on MTD...you're not going to change the way you call a game just because of a couple "Howler" coaches, now are ya?

Dude

[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 21st, 2003 at 09:44 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

Prior to this year, when simultaneous fouls were considered false double fouls, this his how my partners decided to handle such a situation if it were to arise because trying to explain the two fouls to two coaches who are probably not very happy with us is the the easiest thing to do. [/B][/QUOTE]Mark,simultaneous fouls were NOT considered false double fouls last year.That was YOUR interpretation only.We went through this last year and you couldn't back that statement up then.You have nothing in any old rule or casebook that will back up your interpretation,and you know it.Nada,nothing,nil,zip,zero!If you have,please post it for all of us to read.

It wasn't covered last year,and the consensus was to treat it the same as a double foul-which is exactly what the NFHS did when they plugged that loophole this year.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 21st, 2003 at 09:39 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Prior to this year, when simultaneous fouls were considered false double fouls, this his how my partners decided to handle such a situation if it were to arise because trying to explain the two fouls to two coaches who are probably not very happy with us is the the easiest thing to do.

Simulataneous fouls have always been simultaneous fouls, even though there are those who won't accept that they're wrong sometimes.

The rule clearly stated last year that all simultaneous fouls resulted in the team with the AP arrow getting the ball. The only thing that changed was that SF are now found in the definitions.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

The rule clearly stated last year that all simultaneous fouls resulted in the team with the AP arrow getting the ball. The only thing that changed was that SF are now found in the definitions.

Rule 6-3-3(g),to be precise.Same last year as this year,and clearly stated as an AP.

[Teddly]

With NCAA rules
For the above sit.
No F.T.'s
Ball back to team in control no reset to shot clock.
Looks funny, but can't seem to find any other way to dispute
this ruling for ncaa.Any comments?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by pizanno
NFHS 4-19-9 Simultaneous foul
by rule, go to the AP, No FTs...

Hoosier Daddy,
This is the correct call for your situation by the book. If you want some advice about how to handle/avoid this situation then look at some of the other posts.