Only if it was after the "over the back." If it was the same, then it wasn't during the dead ball.

Fair enough, but I could see that going badly if not done right. "partner, you think that might be an intentional?"
Partner, "Sure."
Partner then inexplicably calls an intentional for the OTB foul.

The play isn't dead until the whistle is blown. According to you, you all blew the whistle at the same time, AFTER B34 backed A34 out. Therefore, B34's action did not come after the whistle, so it is NOT a dead ball foul.

BTW, there's no such thing as an "over the back" foul.

Man, I Wish I Had A Nickel ...
 

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6230/...473e048e_m.jpg

Over the back is not a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called. A rebounding player, with an inside position, while boxing out, is not allowed to push back or displace an opponent, which is a pushing foul.

In other words: Over the back isn't a foul, on the back is a foul.

The ball is not dead on the whistle. In the case of a foul, it's dead when the foul occurs. If tref's partner deemed A34's actions to be a foul, then B34's backout occurred during a dead ball (assuming no try was in progress) regardless of when the whistles blew.

There's no try/tap, so yes, the ball is most definitely dead on the whistle. The whistle recognizes the foul and the ball is dead. Are you telling us there's still a foul if there's no whistle? I don't think so.

All three recognized a foul at the same time and whistled. L has a foul on A34, C and T have a foul on B34. That makes this a double foul. C and T dropped the ball by failing to report their foul on B34.

There is no dead ball foul in this play. That's an afterthought by tref to try and cover his mistake.

I'm not going to dispute your final point, but consider this slightly different situation;
B1 blocking out A1 for a rebound. A1 pushes through B1 and gets the ball. In retaliation, B1 clears out an airborne A1, knocking him to the floor.
Whistle blows as A1 is falling to the floor.
Isn't B1's foul a technical?

A1 pushes.
A1 jumps.
A1 gets the ball.
B1 clears out.
A1 hits the floor.

You're not blowing the whistle until A1 is falling to the floor?

Clearing out in retaliation? What's that?

I don't think that's a realistic scenario, nor would I call a technical foul on B1.

Semantics and real world applications
 

Basketball Rules Fundamentals

16. The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

Yes, we pass on some actions in some situations that, in other situations, we may find sufficient to warrant a whistle. In the play discussed in this thread, it's the communication, between partners, after the whistle(s), that is of greatest interest, especially to get a new season started.
The two actions, A34 from behind, B34 from the front, may occur so close to each other, that the only way to sort it out is that communication, and trusting one's partner and his/her judgement, to allow that communcation to be complete. I don't see a deficiency in the judgement of either official in this case.
Perhaps, the confidence between the two was such that the communcation was incomplete. But the OP and the responses are very helpful, and in fact I used what I have gathered in this thread, in two cases, yesterday, with partners in some BV fall tournament games. And because I made sure that our communication was complete, we got the plays and calls right, when both could have been problematic, especially with the two coaches involved.

That's what it all boils down to, communcation. I'm glad you could avoid similar post-whistle mistakes in your game by learning from our mistakes!!

I appreciate all the feedback & critiques! Only makes me a better official.
FTR, I wasn't trying to cover anything. Simply assumed on trips in the paint that we all had the same thing & that my friends was a bigger mistake than the L calling the "push" foul that never occurred. Wish I had it on film...

Are you confident the calling official knows it's not a foul to reach over the back of an opponent? If not, film would be pointless.

Yes.

I dont want the film to prove it wasnt a foul... just would like to see the play again.

Understood.