Double Foul (video)

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

2nd Overtime, 3:31 to go, 2 point game, Home leading.

Whistle -- thought: Is it easier to sell/explain the dbl foul, than a foul on White for holding, or a foul on Black for holding off the defender?
With the dbl foul, it just goes to a throw-in. Maybe, a no-call accomplishes the same thing, since the play seemed to progress with no overwhelming need for the whistle.

With three and change to go in OT, your thought process is a cop out ( with all due respect ), I'm sure there was banging in the post all game long and NOW we are going to call a double.....blow you whistle call the first foul an do the same thing on thhe other end............

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

With three and change to go in OT, your thought process is a cop out ( with all due respect ), I'm sure there was banging in the post all game long and NOW we are going to call a double.....blow you whistle call the first foul an do the same thing on thhe other end............

MS, my comment about the possible thought precess of the official making the call in this video, was an attempt to understand why the whistle seemed (to me) to be so late, and at the moment when the offensive player was reacting to the hold by the defense. To me, at that moment, the only call would have to be a dbl foul.
I agree with you that the first illegal action should be called; and if it were, this video wouldn't be a topic for discussion.

As others have said, it is rare, but sometimes neccessary, to go to the dbl because the second action is enough that it also needs to be penalized.

Actually, from the angle of the Lead, the hold by the defense would have been an easy call. And, if he had called it, this video would not be a topic.

[rockyroad]

Not sure why anyone would think that calling a DF here is a "cop-out"...black 41 (in lovely headgear) displaces and stiff arms white 23 at the same time that white 23 is holding (clamping both arms around the arm of 41)...that would be the very definition of a DF. There was no "first foul" to get on this play.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Not sure why anyone would think that calling a DF here is a "cop-out"...black 42 (in lovely headgear) displaces and stiff arms white 23 at the same time that white 23 is holding (clamping both arms around the arm of 41)...that would be the very definition of a DF. There was no "first foul" to get on this play.

The thing to look at here - and which has been preached during my camps so far - is why did W23 clamp down on B42. Did W23 clamp in response to an illegal act by B42? I would say yes. Right as the throw-in begins, B42 hooks/clamps W23's right arm and that starts the back-and-forth process.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The thing to look at here - and which has been preached during my camps so far - is why did W23 clamp down on B42. Did W23 clamp in response to an illegal act by B42? I would say yes. Right as the throw-in begins, B42 hooks/clamps W23's right arm and that starts the back-and-forth process.

Not seeing that. I do see 42 dip under 21's arm, but I don't see a hook/clamp from 42.