False Multiple Foul

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are reading it correctly. Do not call this. I do not care what the interpretation says, do not call this. Not unless you want to have to explain to a coach why you called one foul that likely caused the other. You probably would have to T a coach too. Good luck with that.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

People do not think it is logical. It is not so much that it is clear, but someone if fouled to many does not make since you would have to charge them with a separate foul. And I cannot think of a situation where a fouled player is not altered in such a way that they would be responsible for another foul either. Yes the play is clear, but it does not make real world sense IMO.

Peace

Did you read the OP or the title to this thread?
This is not a double foul involving a hit on the arm followed by a charge, rather it is followed by a blocking foul. Thus it is a multiple. How could the first foul logically cause the second foul. You immediately defaulted to the double foul argument when it doesn't apply.