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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

(Give it up and find a new cause.)

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:

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.

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.

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

I'm asking a serious question. (this time:D) Is this interpretation (confer, don't confer) written anywhere? I have yet to see it. I just keep getting:
Because that's the way it is.

I thought that's what I was doing by bringing it up here. It's happened before.

Yes, you're the ONLY one I know who reads any ambiguity into the NFHS case play. To everybody else I know, the meaning is clear. Some don't like it, others understand the reasoning; but they all agree with its application.

And yet we all seem to agree it's okay to sweep the multiple foul case under the rug.

Let's take a look at the end result.

On Friday night, I had the same thing happen as was listed in the OP (except I was the lead). Double whistle, my partner had a push on A-1, and I had a block on A-2. My partner and I conversed, and we determined that the A-1 foul he saw came first. Since he had to administer the free throws, I reported the foul.

I reported A-1. B-3 is shooting two.

Let's say, instead, I reported A-1 and A-2. B-3 would still be shooting two, and I'd have a little unnecessary messy confusion to deal with. B-3 is getting his justified free throws, so it doesn't make sense to manage the game otherwise. That's why we pick one.

And it's okay with me, and everybody else, to pick one in this case, even if it was originally called as two.

But this is contrary to the case play.

If your partner had a foul on A1 then your partner should be reporting it. Why did he HAVE to administer the free throws?

I can't think of a good why one official should be reporting another official's foul. :confused:

Here's why. He was the trail, and on the required switch, would administer the free throws. He went to the end line to administer, and I hustled to the reporting area and back to the trail position.

When my partner tells me he has a foul, I trust him.

Do you make a habit of reporting your partner's fouls and vice versa? I don't understand why you would need to do this. Ever. Why was there a required switch when he was already the trail? :confused:

Seems to me that if you're going to choose between a required switch and the official reporting his own foul; I would give up the switch first. Not sure I find either to be a particularly big deal, but I've personally never relayed a foul; but I've foregone plenty of switches where the trail calls a shooting foul.

2 person mechanics are to switch on all fouls.

That said....

Be careful. That's not the NFHS mechanic on shooting fouls anymore. The caller always remains the trail, tableside if you're following NFHS mechanics.

That's what I thought.

Which to me makes more sense than the IAABO mechanic (which is the old NFHS mechanic). Trail on FTs still goes opposite, and all fouls should warrant a switch.

I'm not sure, but I think Bainsey uses IAABO mechanics.

That would explain the switch, but not shortcutting the reporting of the foul. Seems sloppy to report your partner's foul just to avoid the extra steps.

Yeah, I would rather skip the switch than relay a foul report.

Correct, so we switch on all fouls. Actually, this wasn't an IAABO-assigned game, so technically, I didn't have to switch, but I like to keep the habits, just the same. (I got zapped on a recent evaluation for implementing a "summer mechanic" into an IABBO game. Not again.)

I not sure that reporting a partner's foul as a huge deal, especially at the level I was working, though I can easily see where that could get someone in a bind. Had the coach asked, "what did he do?", it may look a little silly for me to turn to my partner for the answer.

You wouldn't get zapped for reporting your partner's foul?

Who'd know it, besides my partner?

I'll check local listings, just the same.

When they had a double whistle with fouls on different players, I'm not sure anyone watching would necessarily know which official was calling a foul on which player unless they were so far apart it was obvious.

That's exactly what was going through my brain when I first read your scenario.

And of course, if I'm working a level where it's no big deal to relay fouls then I'm likely to extend that to "it's no big deal not to switch".

Let's consider the motivations.

If you're doing NFHS mechanics, which require the reporting official to take the trail for the free throws, then you might say, "I had that one, so I'll report it."

If you're doing IAABO mechanics, which require a switch every single time, you might say, "you have to administer anyway, so I'll report it."

The "summer mechanics" around these parts usually mean switching on shooting fouls only (or often, when convenient, especially in running-time games), so a switch would have taken place just the same.

I agree with BNR, I'm much more likely to skip a switch than to relay a foul. I would think the relay would be a bigger deal than the switch, but you know what they say about the Romans.