Multiple fouls

[Adam]

The vocal coach thread got me to look up the penalties for a multiple foul situation. It states that the penalty is one shot for each foul. Is this the case if the team is not in the bonus? What if the second foul puts the team in the bonus? Still one shot per foul?

thanks,
snaqs

[Hawks Coach]

From the Summary of Penalties for Fouls:

6. Multiple Foul:
a. One free throw for each foul:
(1) No try involved.
(2) Successful or unsuccessful two-point try or tap.
(3) Successful three-point try or tap.
b. Two free throws for each foul:
(1) Intentional or flagrant foul.
(2) Unsuccessful three-point try or tap.
Plus ball for throw-in if intentional or flagrant.


So you have it partially right, but there are many different scenarios. Suffice to say that multiple fouls by themselves are uncommon. With that in mind, a) is probaly more common than b0. To meet the criteria for b) would be the least likely scenario, but would result in two FTs.

As for common fouls, I have always assumed that the penalty listed also implied that a team was in the bonus. Can't see giving FTs when under 7 fouls.

[TriggerMN]

The best advice you can receive on this on is to pick one and call the other contact incidental. Preventive officiating at its finest!! :P

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
From the Summary of Penalties for Fouls:

6. Multiple Foul:
a. One free throw for each foul:
(1) No try involved.
(2) Successful or unsuccessful two-point try or tap.
(3) Successful three-point try or tap.
b. Two free throws for each foul:
(1) Intentional or flagrant foul.
(2) Unsuccessful three-point try or tap.
Plus ball for throw-in if intentional or flagrant.


So you have it partially right, but there are many different scenarios. Suffice to say that multiple fouls by themselves are uncommon. With that in mind, a) is probaly more common than b0. To meet the criteria for b) would be the least likely scenario, but would result in two FTs.

As for common fouls, I have always assumed that the penalty listed also implied that a team was in the bonus. Can't see giving FTs when under 7 fouls.

Actually, a multiple is NOT a common foul. A player will get shots for a multiple foul no matter how many there are. The bonus only applies to common fouls.

The penalty listed is for each foul of a multiple foul. In your (b), they would get at least 4 FTs (2 for each of the fouls in the multiple foul). It's possible that there could be a mix of (a) and (b) if one of the multiple was intentional but the other was not.

That said, I've never called a multiple and doubt I ever will. Still, I'm all for it being in the rule book and knowing it is there just in case some clowns decide to gang foul their opponent in such a way that it is clearly not part of the game. For examlple, A1 and A2 (for reasons outside the game), during a live ball, deliberately and viciously foul B1...both of which are flagrant in nature. You need to penalize both A1 and A2. You now have a multiple foul.

[Tim C]

IF you are an official that wants to advance consider the following:

1) The NTSB has determined through extensive testing that the human brain cannot determine the order of events that happen in .04 of a second or less.

2) When "multiple fouls" occur it would seem that it would be highly unlikely that they would occur at exactly the same instant.

3) Since the brain cannot make a determination of the order, you do not know if they were actually happening a the same exact instant of not, so

4) The first foul has ended the possibilty of an additional foul to occur, therefore any foul after the first recognized foul would be incidental and not called.

5) It is "highly unlikely" that multiple fouls can occur and even more rare that it could be determined to be called.

6) Therefore it is literally impossible to have a situation where a multiple foul actually occurred.

In closing, pick your battles and NEVER call a multiple foul. The call will set your career back if it is seen by any person of power (including your partner when he tells the story over a cold adult beverage at the next official's non-sanctioned get together).

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Tim C
IF you are an official that wants to advance consider the following:

1) The NTSB has determined through extensive testing that the human brain cannot determine the order of events that happen in .04 of a second or less.

2) When "multiple fouls" occur it would seem that it would be highly unlikely that they would occur at exactly the same instant.

3) Since the brain cannot make a determination of the order, you do not know if they were actually happening a the same exact instant of not, so

4) The first foul has ended the possibilty of an additional foul to occur, therefore any foul after the first recognized foul would be incidental and not called.

5) It is "highly unlikely" that multiple fouls can occur and even more rare that it could be determined to be called.

6) Therefore it is literally impossible to have a situation where a multiple foul actually occurred.

In closing, pick your battles and NEVER call a multiple foul. The call will set your career back if it is seen by any person of power (including your partner when he tells the story over a cold adult beverage at the next official's non-sanctioned get together).

I agree (in intent) with nearly everything you've said.

However, the multiple foul is defined as "approximately the same time" not "exactly the same instant" so the points about not being able to tell which happened first are not relevant.

Regarding (4) The first foul may not end the possibility of an additional foul if the fouls are by the defense and a player is in the act of shooting or if the fouls are by either team and a try is in flight. In each case, the ball remains live until the try ends and personal fouls may still occur.

Still, I agree with your premise that they should be EXTREMELY rare. But, I'd bet there has been at least one real case where it was a justfied and correct call to make. It's there just in case something really goofy happens and both players deserve a penalty (flagrant).

[Hawks Coach]

for correcting a long-held erroneous assumption. I must admit that I could not back my opinion up by rule or case.

That said. . . It seems bizarre that you oculd have a block and a "reach-in" occur at approximately the same time, they are the first two fouls of the half, and a ref somehow determines that this is a multiple foul and merits two FTs. Two very common occurrences, with nothing remarkable except that different players committed different offenses on the same player at abut the same time. It seems out of line with any other rule to award two FTs for this situation.

I can see multiple fouls coming into play on a flagrant or intentional situation, but only there. The other situation I outline I would hope would never be called. It is penalty well in excess of the violations.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Tim C
2) When "multiple fouls" occur it would seem that it would be highly unlikely that they would occur at exactly the same instant.

5) It is "highly unlikely" that multiple fouls can occur and even more rare that it could be determined to be called.

6) Therefore it is literally impossible to have a situation where a multiple foul actually occurred.

Wow, Tim. No offense, but you flunk Logic 101. Going from "highly unlikely" to "literally impossible" simply doesn't follow from the premises that you list. Of course it's possible. It's just unlikely.

Put 1,000,000 white ping pong balls in a big barrel. Add one red ping pong ball. Now blindfold a volunteer and have him choose one ball out of the barrel.

2) It is "highly unlikely" that the volunteer will pick the red ball.

5) It is "highly unlikely" that the volunteer will pick the red ball and even more rare that he could pick it intentionally.

6) Therefore it is literally impossible for the volunteer to pick the red ball.

Not buyin' it.

Chuck

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

That said. . . It seems bizarre that you oculd have a block and a "reach-in" occur at approximately the same time, they are the first two fouls of the half, and a ref somehow determines that this is a multiple foul and merits two FTs. Two very common occurrences, with nothing remarkable except that different players committed different offenses on the same player at abut the same time. It seems out of line with any other rule to award two FTs for this situation.

I can see multiple fouls coming into play on a flagrant or intentional situation, but only there. The other situation I outline I would hope would never be called. It is penalty well in excess of the violations.

Hence the reality of things...only one of the two fouls gets called...unless they are flagrant or intentional. In my mind, one of the two is almost always more significant to the play and that is the one I will call. The other becomes incidental, not by the fact that it came second or during a dead ball, but by the fact that it didn't make a difference (it may have even been the first contact).

I think the intent of keeping it in the book is, as I've said before, for that time when something happens where you really need to penalize both players.

It could discourage cheap shots. If it were not there, I could imagine a coach that would have his players get an extra hit in when it looks like a teammate is going to commit a foul. Coaches do teach them to hang on if they commit a foul to make sure they don't also complete the shot. It would not be a stretch for them to teach B2 to come in and grab onto A1 as B1 is fouling to really make sure there is no shot.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Feb 3rd, 2003 at 08:34 PM]

[just another ref]

I think the truth is that, by definition, multiple fouls occur all the time. We simply call the foul on one player or the other. How many times have we had a coach say no that foul was on 23 not 13. 13 is the star or already has 3 fouls or whatever. I have often said: "Could have been either one, coach, but he's the one I was looking at." Just once wouldn't it be kinda cool to say: "My mistake, coach, multiple foul, 13 white and 23 white, let's shoot a whole bunch of free throws."

[Nevadaref]

justa for you, justanotherref!
We had a BV game this year that one of my friends officiated in which a double foul was called. The home coach argued rather vehemently that one of the fouls happened first. In fact, he argued so much that the officials actually changed the call to a false double foul. It was the visitor's sixth team foul and the home team's seventh. So wouldn't you know it, the visitor's ended up shooting 1-and-1!
The coach really didn't like that. He said, "You guys really screwed this up!" My buddy said, "You're right, coach. We listened to you."

I suggested to my friend that perhaps the coach would have been pleased if they had called the second foul an intentional technical.

[Tim C]

Let me restate my point:

Much like "tie goes to the runner" when umpiring baseball multiple fouls do not happen.

One always will happen first and that should end it.

There has "never" been a time in my career of watching, officiating, coaching or evaluating where I have seen the "correct call" to be a multiple foul.

Again, I will leave into the sunset before things get testy.

Just take my advice IF YOU WANT . . . never call a multiple foul. No matter what some think. They have their right to call as they see appropriate and I allow them that . . . I am just giveing you real world advice.

Chuck . . . your analogy lost me. I am thick I guess.

Tee

[ChuckElias]

Tim,

I agree completely with your main point. I've never called a multiple foul and doubt that I ever will. My only contention is that your point (which, again, I agree with ) is not supported by the six statements that you enumerated in your previous post. My analogy used your exact statements, simply substituting ping pong balls for multiple fouls. If you were trying to "prove" that it's "literally impossible" for multiple fouls to occur, your six statements didn't accomplish that. That was my only point. Nobody's getting testy. You simply happened to run into the only guy at his college who actually enjoyed Logic class. Sorry

Chuck

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Tim,

I agree completely with your main point. I've never called a multiple foul and doubt that I ever will. My only contention is that your point (which, again, I agree with ) is not supported by the six statements that you enumerated in your previous post. My analogy used your exact statements, simply substituting ping pong balls for multiple fouls. If you were trying to "prove" that it's "literally impossible" for multiple fouls to occur, your six statements didn't accomplish that. That was my only point. Nobody's getting testy. You simply happened to run into the only guy at his college who actually enjoyed Logic class. Sorry

Chuck

You ENJOYED logic class AND you are a BoSox fan??? Isn't that an oxymoron???

[just another ref]

For the record, I am also very much against the multiple foul call as a practice. I have never called or even been tempted to call one in 17 years. The only way I could see making this call is 2 or 3 players go flying into a shooter and really plant him into the wall or something vicious like this. Quite possibly the scene I picture would carry flagrants and ejections and all sorts of fireworks. But this hasn't happened to me yet, and I really hope that it never does.