Multiple Foul

[Adam]

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.

[JRutledge]

Which happened first? That is all I care about.

Peace

[rockyroad]

Play on???

[Camron Rust]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Play on???

Yeah, that would have gone over well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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

[HokiePaul]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Which happened first?

The egg.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The egg.

Hey, start your own poll.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Play on???

Keep it simple hahaha

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.