Simultaneous Foul... or not??

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by shavano

Adam,

Ball was bouncing (loose) on court when whistles sounded.

What was the status of the ball when the fouls occurred? It doesn't matter when the whistles sounded.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

What was the status of the ball when the fouls occurred? It doesn't matter when the whistles sounded.

Bryan,

According to C, ball was in the air when her foul occurred.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by shavano

Bryan,

According to C, ball was in the air when her foul occurred.

Either way, airborne shooter or not, did both of the fouls actually occur at the same time? It doesn't matter when the whistles blew, just when the fouls actually happened.

If one foul actually occurred first, you penalize that foul and ignore the other. UNLESS, that "other" foul is flagrant or intentional.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Either way, airborne shooter or not, did both of the fouls actually occur at the same time? It doesn't matter when the whistles blew, just when the fouls actually happened.

If one foul actually occurred first, you penalize that foul and ignore the other. UNLESS, that "other" foul is flagrant or intentional.

According to my teammates, they did. R11 ended up on the floor after being pushed.

We discussed issuing a flagrant against W2, but L thought that there wasn't any malice, nor premeditation. We thought given the state of the game at that time ( 3:24 left in 4th, Red up by 18), that the simultaneous was the correct call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by shavano

We thought given the state of the game at that time ( 3:24 left in 4th, Red up by 18), that the simultaneous was the correct call.

Some will say state of the game is irrelevant. Others will say go with the foul on the shot and forget the other, regardless of the state of the game.

Consult your local listings.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Either way, airborne shooter or not, did both of the fouls actually occur at the same time? It doesn't matter when the whistles blew, just when the fouls actually happened.

If one foul actually occurred first, you penalize that foul and ignore the other. UNLESS, that "other" foul is flagrant or intentional.

Not always true, and this play might be one.

A1 releases ball.

A1 is fouled. Ball is still in the air and is live.

A2 fouls while ball is in the air, but after A1 is fouled.

Or, A1 releases ball.

B1 moves into A1's landing space and at the same time A2 pushes B2 moving for rebound position.

The last one is a simultaneous foul; the first two are false double fouls.

Or,
A1 is fouled.

Ball goes below ring.

A2 pushes B2.

Because of recognition timing of the officials, the whistles sound sulitaneously.

Here, we ignore the second foul.

Both fouls (by rule) are penalized.

Or,
A1 starts try and is fouled.

A1 releases ball on try.

A2 fouls.

Again, both fouls are penalized.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not always true, and this play might be one.

A1 releases ball.

A1 is fouled. Ball is still in the air and is live.

A2 fouls while ball is in the air, but after A1 is fouled.

Both fouls (by rule) are penalized.

Or,
A1 starts try and is fouled.

A1 releases ball on try.

A2 fouls.

Again, both fouls are penalized.

I can't find a case like this, but I would only use the rule about the ball remaining live throughout the shot to determine if the shooter gets one or two free throws. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just looking for further clarification.

[Rich1]

Wow. You guys really like to split hairs. What matters here is that you had two whistles, the crew came together, and a decision was made based on their judgement in that game. This all sounds like good mechanics which gave them credibility when explaining it to the coaches. When we evaluate refs in my chapter we focus mostly on mechanics and rules unless something is agregious. Judgement is judgement and I don't want to question a fellow refs judgement unless they were clearly in the wrong. When the crew mentioned in this post came together and determined that the fouls occured at the same time, they did exactly what they should have done. Without seeing it on tape that's the only conclusion I can clme too.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Wow. You guys really like to split hairs. What matters here is that you had two whistles, the crew came together, and a decision was made based on their judgement in that game. This all sounds like good mechanics which gave them credibility when explaining it to the coaches. When we evaluate refs in my chapter we focus mostly on mechanics and rules unless something is agregious. Judgement is judgement and I don't want to question a fellow refs judgement unless they were clearly in the wrong. When the crew mentioned in this post came together and determined that the fouls occured at the same time, they did exactly what they should have done. Without seeing it on tape that's the only conclusion I can clme too.

I agree with Rich1.

I've been taught that if you're going to call something off ball then have knowledge as to the status of the ball. It helps me know whether I've got a live ball contact foul to call or a dead ball no-call or worse.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Wow. You guys really like to split hairs. What matters here is that you had two whistles, the crew came together, and a decision was made based on their judgement in that game. This all sounds like good mechanics which gave them credibility when explaining it to the coaches. When we evaluate refs in my chapter we focus mostly on mechanics and rules unless something is agregious. Judgement is judgement and I don't want to question a fellow refs judgement unless they were clearly in the wrong. When the crew mentioned in this post came together and determined that the fouls occured at the same time, they did exactly what they should have done. Without seeing it on tape that's the only conclusion I can clme too.

Getting together is good.

Getting together and getting it right is better. The definition of "right" depends on the exact timing -- and that's what much of this discussion has been about.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I can't find a case like this, but I would only use the rule about the ball remaining live throughout the shot to determine if the shooter gets one or two free throws. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just looking for further clarification.

The ball remaining live during a shot attempt has nothing to do with whether or not the person who shot the ball gets free throws or how many free throws. The ball remains live during the shot attempt. The shooter is only a shooter until they land. They can shoot a jump shot, land while the ball is still in the air, get fouled and not shoot any free throws. In this case, the basket would count and team A would either get the ball out of bounds at spot nearest where foul occurred or would shoot free throws if his team was in the bonus. They would not get one free throw for being fouled during an attempt nor would they get two or three free throws if the shot was unsuccessful. My point was that is not very likely that the person shooting a 3 point shot is still an airborne shooter when the ball is bouncing on the court. Therefore, the ball is only live until the shot ends. The shot ends, when it is certain it isn't going to be good. If the ball is bouncing on the floor, than the shot can no longer be good.

[Adam]

Just clarifying a tertiary point. An airborne shooter does not keep the ball live. The ball becomes dead when the try is over regardless of whether the shooter has landed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Either way, airborne shooter or not, did both of the fouls actually occur at the same time? It doesn't matter when the whistles blew, just when the fouls actually happened.

If one foul actually occurred first, you penalize that foul and ignore the other. UNLESS, that "other" foul is flagrant or intentional.

Not quite. The rebounding foul, even if it is second, can still be during a live ball and can/should still be penalized in some cases even if it is not intentional/flagrant.

[Raymond]

Had this play in an NCAA scrimmage. Final Four official observing said we need to go with the shooting foul and rule the rebounding foul as incidental contact (which is what the 2 officials decided, they just took too long to accomplish it).

So, basically what johnny d said.

Right or wrong? It's right when I'm working for certain supervisors.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Had this play in an NCAA scrimmage. Final Four official observing said we need to go with the shooting foul and rule the rebounding foul as incidental contact (which is what the 2 officials decided, they just took too long to accomplish it).

So, basically what johnny d said.

Right or wrong? It's right when I'm working for certain supervisors.

Ignore or penalize. Judgement.