The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Simultaneous whistles (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/87560-simultaneous-whistles.html)

Chris Whitten Sat Feb 04, 2012 07:16pm

Simultaneous whistles
 
Two whistle game with A1 driving in the lane toward his basket when he enters heavy traffic. Partner @ lead whistles a hit on his side of A1 and I whistle one on my side. We get together and determine his foul occurred first and penalize only that foul. Is there ever a situation where one would penalize both?

JetMetFan Sat Feb 04, 2012 07:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten (Post 820270)
Two whistle game with A1 driving in the lane toward his basket when he enters heavy traffic. Partner @ lead whistles a hit on his side of A1 and I whistle one on my side. We get together and determine his foul occurred first and penalize only that foul. Is there ever a situation where one would penalize both?

By rule you're actually supposed to since what you're describing is a multiple foul. In practice we always choose one.

4-19-11

A multiple foul is a situation in which two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approximately the same time.

Adam Sat Feb 04, 2012 07:50pm

If he wasn't shooting, you cannot penalize both. If he was shooting, don't be the first crew in your area to call this.

APG Sat Feb 04, 2012 07:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 820283)
If he wasn't shooting, you cannot penalize both. If he was shooting, don't be the first crew in your area to call this.

Also known as a pioneer call...pick one call and enforce it.

just another ref Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:16pm

This case play doesn't matter, but another one, much less well defined, does matter.

just another ref Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 820283)
If he wasn't shooting, you cannot penalize both.


Why not?

Camron Rust Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 820316)
Why not?

Because the ball was dead on the first one. If the second one were intentional or flagrant, the original question would have even been relevant.

just another ref Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 820321)
Because the ball was dead on the first one. If the second one were intentional or flagrant, the original question would have even been relevant.


The whistles were simultaneous. Why are they allowed to get together and decide which was first?

JetMetFan Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten (Post 820270)
Two whistle game with A1 driving in the lane toward his basket when he enters heavy traffic. Partner @ lead whistles a hit on his side of A1 and I whistle one on my side. We get together and determine his foul occurred first and penalize only that foul. Is there ever a situation where one would penalize both?

Here's what happens - again, by rule - if you decide to go with both calls. I've officiated 20+ years and have never seen it happen but it's in the rule book which means it must've happened somewhere:

Rule 10-6

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.

NOTE: If one or both fouls of a multiple foul are flagrant, two free throws are awarded for each flagrant foul. Any player who commits a flagrant foul is disqualified.

Camron Rust Sun Feb 05, 2012 03:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 820331)
The whistles were simultaneous. Why are they allowed to get together and decide which was first?

Because the acts were two separate acts that didn't happen at the same time.

(Give it up and find a new cause.)

just another ref Sun Feb 05, 2012 03:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 820342)
Because the acts were two separate acts that didn't happen at the same time.

In the OP, maybe not, but hypothetically they could be. But, even then, it's okay to discuss and come out with a single solution if two signals were originally given?

Camron Rust Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 820343)
In the OP, maybe not, but hypothetically they could be. But, even then, it's okay to discuss and come out with a single solution if two signals were originally given?

Quit being silly. You KNOW that if it is for two separate acts, by rule, the ball is dead on the first one. So you MUST figure out which occurred first.

In the blarge situation that you're alluding to, it is one single act with two expressed judgments....neither of which could have possible occurred before the other AND such that neither official's judgement is allowed to override the other. :rolleyes:

just another ref Sun Feb 05, 2012 01:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 820407)
Quit being silly. You KNOW that if it is for two separate acts, by rule, the ball is dead on the first one. So you MUST figure out which occurred first.

So now it is impossible that the two separate acts occurred at the same time? And what if they're not exactly the same? 4-19-11 says at approximately the same time.

Quote:

In the blarge situation that you're alluding to, it is one single act with two expressed judgments....neither of which could have possible occurred before the other AND such that neither official's judgement is allowed to override the other. :rolleyes:
And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

bob jenkins Sun Feb 05, 2012 01:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 820413)
And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Because that's the way it is (or is interpreted to be).

NCAAM and NCAAW have the same woriding on double foul (and it's at least approximately the same as FED). Yet, one interprets it one way and one the other.

Work to change it if you like. Write your state. Write the FED. Propose a rules clarification. etc. But please, please, please stop bringing it up here.

Adam Sun Feb 05, 2012 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 820413)
And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Seriously, you're going to have to ask the rules comittee, or submit a $#%#^%$ rules change.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1