False Double Foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Now that I give it more thought, I'm realizing I'm trying to rewrite the book.

It happened like #3, so we needed to penalize like #3. I can't penalize #5 when it happened like #3.

Disregard my previous post.

And because you're going to end up tossing A1 with 2 T's when everything is sorted out, I'd probably call B1's personal foul an intentional foul....for no other reason than to send a message that B1's shove was also serious and would not be tolerated.

It will not change anything since A, if I'm reading correctly, was over 10 fouls. The same number of shots would be taken either way and B would still be getting the ball after the final T was penalized. Even if A were not over 10 fouls, I'd call it intentional and let A have the 2 shots.

Doing so would go a long way towards containing any escalation from either side.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And because you're going to end up tossing A1 with 2 T's when everything is sorted out, I'd probably call B1's personal foul an intentional foul....for no other reason than to send a message that B1's shove was also serious and would not be tolerated.

It will not change anything since A, if I'm reading correctly, was over 10 fouls. The same number of shots would be taken either way and B would still be getting the ball after the final T was penalized. Even if A were not over 10 fouls, I'd call it intentional and let A have the 2 shots.

Doing so would go a long way towards contain any escalation from either side.

Neither team was in the bonus. Now I'm wondering what I said to make you think that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Toren

Neither team was in the bonus. Now I'm wondering what I said to make you think that.

I got it from the quote below but I may have read it incorrectly.....if you were speaking as if the middle foul were a T.

Originally Posted by Toren

My thinking as I was talking to my partner, was upgrading the personal foul to a T because I felt the push might have been on purpose to get A1 to retaliate. In either case, I wanted to send a strong message to Team A and to Team B that this kind of non sense wasn't going to be tolerated. This is why we went with T, T, T. But we should have administered it 6 free throws, 2 for Team B, followed by two by Team A, followed by 2 for Team B and the ball OOB for Team B. Am I understanding it correctly?

[Camron Rust]

Now, all that said, I THINK that the middle foul by B1 SHOULD be a T....not specifically by rule, but by common sense.

At its core, it really was an unsporting act in retaliation for an unsporting act. If the trigger was worthy of a T, the response should be no less. Regardless of the live/dead ball status' effect on contact fouls with regards to them being considered personal or technical, I think that fouls involving contact but in an unsporting manner should simply be T's.

So, in the end, I think the fact that you called 3 T's was not really "wrong".

If I were in a game with you, and that is what you wanted to do, I wouldn't resist it.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now, all that said, I THINK that the middle foul by B1 SHOULD be a T....not specifically by rule, but by common sense.

At its core, it really was an unsporting act in retaliation for an unsporting act. If the trigger was worthy of a T, the response should be no less. Regardless of the live/dead ball status' effect on contact fouls with regards to them being considered personal or technical, I think that fouls involving contact but in an unsporting manner should simply be T's.

So, in the end, I think the fact that you called 3 T's was not really "wrong".

If I were in a game with you, and that is what you wanted to do, I wouldn't resist it.

I really loved the great points you made in your first post!! Calling the intentional foul on B1
when we toss A1 for his 2nd provides us an opportunity to show we are fair.

But, surely you don't suggest that we upgrade a personal to a technical for live ball contact?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

I really loved the great points you made in your first post!! Calling the intentional foul on B1
when we toss A1 for his 2nd provides us an opportunity to show we are fair.

But, surely you don't suggest that we upgrade a personal to a technical for live ball contact?

I don't mean to suggest the current rules support such a conclusion but that I think they should be made to support such a conclusion.

However, it is often the case that situations that result in live ball contact also include non-contact elements....such as verbal assaults. You could always call a T for that part of the incident and be within the rules.

I just don't like the discontinuity in the infraction to penalty mapping....an attempt to contact in an unsportsmanlike manner and a miss being a T while an attempt to contact in an unsportsmanlike manner with contact being personal. I think the rules should be changed to allow T's for unsportsmanlike acts, even if they involve contact during a live ball.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

At its core, it really was an unsporting act in retaliation for an unsporting act. If the trigger was worthy of a T, the response should be no less. Regardless of the live/dead ball status' effect on contact fouls with regards to them being considered personal or technical, I think that fouls involving contact but in an unsporting manner should simply be T's.

This is what I keep going back and forth on.

I'm probably looking for the easy way out -- or perhaps an aversion to plumbing, as some would say -- but I like the idea of a T and a double foul, assuming the ball was still in flight during A1's and B1's contact.

Easy dealing: report the T, report both personal fouls, shoot the free throws, resume at the division line.