double foul

[stick]

Thank you for your responses. On the way home I thought I may have been mistaken but not certain. I do know that any foul that occurs after a whistle is a dead ball foul which means it's either a technical or intentional. That means it would play out as Mark stated. But these two whistles were so close together that I did not consider it that way. I've never heard of taking a called foul back or ignoring a called foul. Is that something that's been done? Ironically after getting the coaches together and explaining the call the visiting teams coach was vociferously (but using clean language) arguing for a flagrant foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by stick

Thank you for your responses. On the way home I thought I may have been mistaken but not certain. I do know that any foul that occurs after a whistle is a dead ball foul which means it's either a technical or intentional. That means it would play out as Mark stated. But these two whistles were so close together that I did not consider it that way. I've never heard of taking a called foul back or ignoring a called foul. Is that something that's been done? Ironically after getting the coaches together and explaining the call the visiting teams coach was vociferously (but using clean language) arguing for a flagrant foul.

He was close, it sounds like you needed to call a technical foul on A1.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by stick

Thank you for your responses. On the way home I thought I may have been mistaken but not certain. I do know that any foul that occurs after a whistle is a dead ball foul which means it's either a technical or intentional

This is just another example of where you need to work on your rules knowledge.

Dead ball contact that isn't ignored is *always* a technical -- it can be a flagrant technical foul or an intentional technical foul, but the phrase "technical or intentional" makes no sense in this context.

[BillyMac]

False double (if the second foul was intentional, or flagrant). Penalize in the order that they occurred.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by stick

I do know that any foul that occurs after a whistle is a dead ball foul which means it's either a technical or intentional.

I don't mean to pile on about your rules knowledge, but the above statement is not actually true. There is a case in which a foul committed during a dead ball ("after the whistle") would be a personal foul.

Additionally, dead balls happen all the time without a whistle, so it's possible to have a technical foul during a dead ball period which is not preceded by a whistle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't mean to pile on about your rules knowledge, but the above statement is not actually true. There is a case in which a foul committed during a dead ball ("after the whistle") would be a personal foul.

Additionally, dead balls happen all the time without a whistle, so it's possible to have a technical foul during a dead ball period which is not preceded by a whistle.

And in fact if this foul had occurred prior to the whistle due to a delayed whistle (I've had this before), then it would still be an intentional technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

And in fact if this foul had occurred prior to the whistle due to a delayed whistle (I've had this before), then it would still be an intentional technical foul.

... because the first foul, not the whistle, made the ball dead (unless the foul was by an opponent of a player in the act of shooting).

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by stick

Thank you for your responses. On the way home I thought I may have been mistaken but not certain. I do know that any foul that occurs after a whistle is a dead ball foul which means it's either a technical or intentional. That means it would play out as Mark stated. But these two whistles were so close together that I did not consider it that way. I've never heard of taking a called foul back or ignoring a called foul. Is that something that's been done? Ironically after getting the coaches together and explaining the call the visiting teams coach was vociferously (but using clean language) arguing for a flagrant foul.

If your partners told you one foul happened before the other you can’t all of a sudden consider them simultaneous fouls (as opposed to just a plain old DF which would have been A1 and B1 fouling each another). As was said in other posts, the first foul – not the whistle resulting from the first foul – created the dead-ball situation. Anything you were going to call after that had to be some form of T.

[stick]

JetMet fan that's kind of what I was thinking on the way home. But the fact that A1 and B1 fouled each other and with the whistles being so close together is why I came up with the double foul. I did ask the officials if the fouls occurred at the same time and neither one really knew. The good thing was neither official ran to the table so we could discuss it to get it right. They discussed it for about 10 seconds then waved me over. Then we discussed it out for about a minute. Guess I was wrong on this one. My mistake. Thanks for your input.

[JetMetFan]

My apologies because I read the OP too quickly and didn’t remember A1 and B1 fouled each other as I wrote my response.

At any rate, consider the description of the situation (I’m guessing it’s how they described it to one another) and the question regarding what to call pretty much answers itself: B1 grabbed A1 just to get a quick foul and A1 took exception and kind of pushed B1. The ball is dead on B1’s act. Now you just have to decide whether to penalize A1. If the description was “B1 came up to A1 in an attempt to foul her and they both shoved each other” then both did something wrong to each other at about the same time while the ball was live. DF.