Multiple Foul
 

Here's the situation situation:

B1's contact is what actually affects the shot attempt.
B2's contact is what knocks an already off balance A1 to the floor.

Neither was excessive.

There's no advantage to B2's contact, but it knocked an airborne shooter to the floor.

Was this:
1. No foul (by rule) on B2 as the shot was already gone and there was no advantage?
2. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets ignored because we're already calling the foul on B1?
3. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets called in lieu of the foul on B1 because it knocked A1 to the floor?
4. A multiple foul?

I think we'll do a poll.

Which happened first? That is all I care about.

Peace

Play on???:p

Your choices are not complete. If you don't call it, it is, by rule, not a foul.

Yeah, that would have gone over well. :D

I disagree. That implies there's no such thing as a missed foul call.

My answer is that the timing of the second foul as well how much the first foul affects the shot attempt will determine whether it is A or B. If the foul prevented the shot from having a chance to go in then I consider the try for goal to have ended and the ball would be dead when the contact by B2 occured. Contact would be ignored (if not flagrant or intentional). Answer A -- no foul by rule)

If on the other hand, the shooter was still able to get a shot off, the ball is in the air and the ball has not become dead yet. Therefore, it would be a foul by rule. Answer B ... I'm still not calling a multiple foul here if it was not excessive.

To Get To The Other Side ???
 

The egg.

Hey, start your own poll.

By rule, you'd be wrong...

4-19...A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.

Maybe it should have been a foul but by rule it wasn't since it wasn't charged and penalized.

I honestly think you're getting into semantics now.

No, just another smoke screen by an official who won't admit they pass on what, by rule, should be called a multiple foul.

Everybody here says you must report both fouls on a blarge "because of the case play." (that's not even what the case play says but that's another argument)


The case play for a multiple foul is infinitely more clear cut, and it actually has a corresponding rule in the book which says the same thing, while a blarge does not.

But you never call a multiple foul. Why? Just cuz. There is no other reason.



If you feel you must call the blarge, by all means do so, but a case play alone is obviously not reason enough.

Keep it simple hahaha :D

No. Every single contact situation is a judgement of whether a foul has been committed or not. If you chose not to call it, it is simply not a foul at all even if someone else would have called it. We can find plenty of situations where one official would call something a foul while another would not, having judged it to be incidental. In one case, it is a foul. In the other, it isn't. The fact that calling would make it a multiple foul doesn't change that.

The only other alternative is that you're saying that you call every single contact a foul and that you never judge some contact to be incidental.

More smoke and mirrors. Bottomline is that you just don't have the courage to call multiple fouls.

I don't recall Camron making the claim that anyone else should call them either. I've only seen that claim from one member.

No, the other alternative is acknowledging that even if I didn't call something, it was still could have been a foul. Maybe I didn't call it because I didn't see it. Maybe I didn't all it because I judged it to be incidental. I make mistakes in judgment. I've called fouls that weren't, and I've no-called plays that were fouls.

Well, that one member would obviously state the Camron does not have courage. Since he is 3 hours behind me I just want to accelerate the process. :D

Am I late? ;)

Since I've had the opportunity to meet Camron in person and have a great deal of respect for him, rather than speculate I believe that it would best to just ask him directly what he would do on the court in such a situation.

Let's set the scenario and state a few givens.
A1 drives and during the act of shooting is whacked on the arm by B1. The Lead official observes this action and whistles immediately for a foul.
A1 goes airborne and releases the ball. Just after the release and prior to A1 returning to the floor B2 comes from the C's side of the lane and while attempting to block the shot swings late and strikes the shooter in the head.
The C judges this action to be a foul. Now you are the C. Do you blow the whistle or not? If so, how do you proceed with you partner in the Lead position?

This is a situation where I'd consider a multiple foul, but that is so completely different than my proposed situation, which actually happened, that it deserves its own thread and poll. :D

Yes, it is completely different. But to play along.

Where I work (or should I say, who I work for) would expect the 2 officials to come together briefly and have the C take the "obvious" foul to the table. (with the possibility that we have a IF/FF1).

And until such time that a coach sends in some film and asks why a multiple foul wasn't called I doubt anyone would bat an eye, at least not around these parts.

That's how I'd handle it as well.

Word Of The Day: Naive ...
 

Don't hold your breath. You're assuming that coaches know what a multiple foul is? Wow? I've got this bridge that I want to sell. It crosses the East River from Manhattan to Brooklyn. A lot of cars travel on it every day, so whoever buys this from me can make a lot of money by putting a toll on the bridge. Interested?

We do not call multiple fouls because of the storm it will bring. We have coaches that complain if the foul difference is 7-2 and if we call a multiple foul on the team with 7, now it is 9-2. And the next foul we are shooting two shots every single time in that half. And you think a coach that does not know this is a rule is going to be like, "OK I am good with that."

Pick one and move on.

Peace

That Guy ...
 

Agree. Absent an intentional foul, or flagrant foul, I am probably more likely to call my first ten second fee throw violation before I call my first multiple foul. Call me any name in the book that you guys want to, but I simply don't want to be "that guy". As far as I'm concerned, again, absent an intentional foul, or flagrant foul, the multiple foul rule is a "test question" rule. I called a "fist violation" a few years ago and took a lot of grief from my colleagues. It took a long time to shake that one off.

I have never called a 10 second FT violation, but I was in a game where it was called. I still give the guy crap about it today when I see him. :D

That being said it was a solid violation call on the part of my partner. I think he gave him about 15 seconds and the coach gave his player crap about taking so long. His routine was very unusual where he walked away from the line and faced the other end of the floor while still in the circle and paused and then came back to the line to shoot. So I agree, I probably would call one of these long before I ever think to call a multiple foul.

Peace

When did somebody ever decide
 

that multiple fouls were a good idea?

I can't even imagine a coach bringing that up and other coaches agreeing to it. Especially if they considered how this would effect their team when it was called on them.

I think if this was made a point of emphasis and we called it for 1 regular season, the rule would be eliminated.

Or we would start hearing complaints from coaches, like "Look I know you called that foul, but his teammate also fouled him. That's a multiple foul by rule and we should be shooting 6 free throws cause it was a 3 point shot"

To which we'd have to explain how many free throws a multiple foul gives, plus explaining why we didn't have one on this play. :eek:

Well the coaches are the ones voting on the rules right?

Simple fix: award a one-shot, no possession technical for dead ball contact. The real penalty for a technical should be fear of ejection/disqualification, not two shots and the ball.

Won't happen in high school in the near future...they WANT the added (potential) penalty of loss of possession...just like they also include the loss of the coaching box on (in)directs on the coach.

It must exist so that the 2nd player doesn't feel like they can get a free shot....or two players creating excessive contact. Even if you call them intentional, they would still be multiples.

When I hear a whistle from my partner for a foul, I'm not likely to come in with another foul at all unless I think it was intentional or flagrant.

A Multiple Multiple Foul ???
 

Wow? A new twist? A multiple foul from multiple officials? Interesting. Very interesting.

I've seen a multiple foul called once and I believe it was the right call. Severe contact affecting the shot must be called. Contact with affects a safe landing in a non-trivial manner should also be called.