Double Technical or False Double?
 

Some help please.

Player A1 complains loudly about a call with his arms extended in the air facing the official. A1 is assessed a Technical (unsportsmanlike contact). As the calling official makes his way to the reporting area B1 is also assessed a technical foul for an unsportsmanlike display (his verbal response and visual reaction to A1's Technical).

Double technical or false double?

We called this a double T this past weekend, but I wonder if we kicked it.

wow, that does make you think. I have a false double.

While they happened at the same time on the clock, they were separate.

I would shoot both sets and give the ball opposite of the table to A.

Two separate situations. Penalize in the order they occurred.

The more I read the more I believe we kicked it.

This discussion with colleagues Dexter and DeNucci is part of what I'm seeing when I do some poking around.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...technical.html

A double foul (whether P or T) is by opponents against each other. So, you know it wasn't that.

Now, it might have been a Simultaneous T, but it doesn't seem so from your description. I'm not quite sure what "unsportsmanlike contact" is (A1's foul), but it reads that B's reaction was to the foul call, not to A's actions.

By definition it is a false double foul.

What that means in English, you apply both penalties in the order they occured.

This is why I say you really do not call a false double foul, it happens based on circumstances. But if you want to win a rules trivia question it is a false double foul.

Shoot the FTs for anything that took place if necessary. Then shoot the FTs by Team B, then Team A, then A gets the ball at the division line and continue play.

Peace

The description sounds more like a simultaneous technical foul. Both players commited technical fouls, they didn't commit them against each other and they were at approximately the same time (i.e., during the same dead ball).

Before anyone breaks down "approximately," consider other situations where this happens: a fight breaks out on the court, A6 leaves his bench area then, say, ten seconds later B6 leaves his bench area. Both receive flagrant technicals (NFHS) and those fouls are considered simultaneous technicals (10-4-5).

As to the OP, my feeling is the play was handled correctly. A1 picks up a T for unsportsmanlike conduct. While the official is reporting/as the official is about to report that foul, B1 picks up a T for unsportsmanlike conduct. The Ts then become simultaneous. No FTs for those. Just deal with the penalty for the initial foul on A1.

My rule of thumb, which I originally read on this site a long time ago, is that it's a double foul (or simultaneous) if they happen quickly enough that you don't have time to spit the whistle out.

If you call one foul and have enough time to spit out the whistle and have to put it back in to call the second one, it's false double.

It's not perfect, but it works for me.

A fight is different. It is all one big incident no matter how long it takes.

To me, the fact that he was reacting to the call rather than the original act means too much time elapsed to consider them simultaneous.

Unsportsmanlike contact in the original post should have read unsportsmanlike CONDUCT. It was early when I wrote it and I had only had one cup of coffee.

When all else fails, look in the Case Book
 

8.6.2 SITUATION C: During the dead-ball period immediately following a goal by A1, B1 is charged with an unsporting technical foul for using profanity toward A1. A few seconds later, A2 is charged with an unsporting technical foul for taunting B1. Are free throws awarded or are the fouls considered to have occurred simultaneously with offsetting penalties?

<O:p</O:pRULING: The fouls did not occur simultaneously and free throws are awarded in the order in which the fouls occurred. Team A will attempt their two free throws followed by Team B’s two attempts. Following the second attempt by Team B, they will have a throw-in from the division line opposite the table. (4-19-9, 10)<O:p</O:p

Getting into the discussion late because of business and officiating with Junior, but as many of my esteemed colleagues have already posted, this is a FDF.

MTD, Sr.

Thanks. My mistake. I didn't see that one when I searched "simultaneously" on Arbiter. I was looking under Rules 4 and 10.