Double Foul (video)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Cop-out implies a lack of intestinal fortitude. I look at it more as not seeing the whole play. I'd rather have a partner call a double foul, instead of letting the 2 players continue to pound on each other.

I also think officials use this as a cop-out still. They do not want to piss off one team so they call a double foul when one contact clearly took place first. That being said, this has been acceptable for a long time. I used to buy into this even when the contact was not at the same time, which basically is the requirement for a double foul to be called. I just think this is not a good situation where you can default on a double foul. The player in black clearly was pushing off the white player and then the white player reacted. Get the first foul.

Heck I remember going to John Adam's camp back in the day and he said, "If you miss the first foul, miss the second foul, call the third foul" when he would talk about post play. But that was also a long time ago and before he was the NCAA Director and there was more emphasis on freedom of movement.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also think officials use this as a cop-out still. They do not want to piss off one team so they call a double foul when one contact clearly took place first. That being said, this has been acceptable for a long time. I used to buy into this even when the contact was not at the same time, which basically is the requirement for a double foul to be called. I just think this is not a good situation where you can default on a double foul. The player in black clearly was pushing off the white player and then the white player reacted. Get the first foul.

Heck I remember going to John Adam's camp back in the day and he said, "If you miss the first foul, miss the second foul, call the third foul" when he would talk about post play. But that was also a long time ago and before he was the NCAA Director and there was more emphasis on freedom of movement.

Peace

At least someone who calls a double foul is paying attention to off-ball coverage and is probably coachable into being more diligent about getting the first illegal contact in the future.

I've worked with officials who have no idea what is going on off-ball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

At least someone who calls a double foul is paying attention to off-ball coverage and is probably coachable into being more diligent about getting the first illegal contact in the future.

I've worked with officials who have no idea what is going on off-ball.

That is true. You are not a ball watcher in most cases if you call a double foul. Or you watched the action late. Not disagreeing with you there, I just like the first foul to be called. I pride myself on getting the first call even when there is a reaction. Sometimes the reaction helps me make the call that action that happened first.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

I believe that even if one started it and we see who started it that it can still be a double foul if the 2nd player responds by fouling at almost the same time (before we blow the whistle). It isn't a matter of seeing who started it but just cleaning up rough play when both are just as guilty.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It isn't a matter of seeing who started it but just cleaning up rough play when both are just as guilty.

Exactly. Sometimes, the message is, "both of you, knock it off."

I think the best thing they did several years ago was changing the result of a double foul from the arrow to POI (assuming team control exists). I haven't been blowing a whistle that long, but long enough to dislike the arrow. I always thought the arrow discouraged the double foul call.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... even when the contact was not at the same time, which basically is the requirement for a double foul to be called.

Same time? Not quite. The rule reads, "approximately the same time".