False multiple foul w/ T first

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not logical that a team is spared part of the penalty for a foul by committing another foul.

I don't disagree, but the frequency of this particular sasquatch is such that it's not really worth screwing with the rules to fix it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't disagree, but the frequency of this particular sasquatch is such that it's not really worth screwing with the rules to fix it.

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.

[Adam]

What would you do if the op was changed so the second foul was a PC on A1?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.

Is there a rule which says a part of one of the penalties can/shall be waived to preserve the order of the administration? Why not cancel the free throw for the personal and give the offended team the ball?

[bob jenkins]

8-6-2: If there is a multiple throw and both a single personal and single technical foul are involved, the tries shall be attempted in the order in which the related fouls occurred, and IF (emphasis added) the last try is for a single technical foul... the ball shall be put in play by a throw-in.

Now, what would we do if the fouls were simultaneous?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8-6-2: If there is a multiple throw and both a single personal and single technical foul are involved, the tries shall be attempted in the order in which the related fouls occurred, and IF (emphasis added) the last try is for a single technical foul... the ball shall be put in play by a throw-in.

That's it. No more questions. Saving grace is that I anticipate that I will never see such a false double/multiple occur in this sequence.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's it. No more questions. Saving grace is that I anticipate that I will never see such a false double/multiple occur in this sequence.

How about the scenario that I posted in #17? The throw-in foul is not that uncommon.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Now, what would we do if the fouls were simultaneous?

Invoke 2-3.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Invoke 2-3.

I agree. And, I'm likely having the T be second.

And, since the definition of double fouls and multiple fouls and SIMULTANEOUS fouls include "at approximately the same time" can a T and a PF that occur during the same act of shooting (which in all but extreme cases is a failry short period of time), be considered "simultaneous?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is there to fix? I haven't seen anything written which supports this particular interpretation.

The fact that there's no rule that says FM fouls can be enforced in anything but order of occurance.