Double Foul (video)
 

Thoughts? Observations? Likes? Dislikes?


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/347V0AdYSTc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think the initial illegal contact is by white 23. Whose primary is this under NCAA-W? Does Lead look at the dribbler and Trail look at the post? I would hope Lead would have a handle on this play.

PS: Where'd you get this video JetMet?

I'm OK with the double. While it seems white might the primary instigator at first glance, black is keeping her from getting close with a straight-arm.

It looks like the foul is on the black player who is pushing off and the white player reacts.

I am not a fan of double fouls, get the first foul. Clearly both situations happen at different times.

Peace

Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun ...
 

... nor am I. When I do call them, which is very seldom, I tend to call them early in the season, and early in the game. I will usually call at least one in my preseason scrimmages, just to keep the knuckleheads in check as they try to impress the coach with their physical prowess trying to make the first string.

Everything is going on in the L's primary. He focused on the BH/dribbler after the throw-in so the T can pick that up. However, I think I would've been inclined to look at the post play first from the L and let the T deal with the BH/dribbler. The post was where the real action was taking place.


The internet is a wonderful thing :) I'm that geek who searches for NCAA-W's games during - and after - the season on YouTube so I can see more plays. It definitely helped me this past season.


My thoughts as well. It's not easy to see from the angle but I have the first foul on the offensive post player. In one of the NCAA-W breakout videos this past season D. Williamson broke down a play like this. Black #42 is essentially setting a screen. She's trying to keep White #23 from getting to a desired spot and she does it by clamping down on White #23's right arm.

L's primary goes from the endline to the FT line extended and from the middle of the lane all the way out to the sideline. So both the dribbler and the post players are in L's primary. T or C would have secondary coverage on the post players since L will be looking primarily at the dribbler matchup.

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.

Get the first foul
 

You have to have something here; was just at an NCAA-W camp yesterday, and Jon Levinson was a clinician--said that post play HAS to be cleaned up this season or we're not going to like what could come with rule changes next year...

As for the call itself, get the first foul!

I don't know what the time or score have to do with it, but I could be easily sold either way. I like "getting the first" too, but if the second clearly happens quickly, you have to get that one, too.

Is the NCAA double-foul signal the same as NFHS? If so, it would have been less confusing for everyone had the official gotten those fists out quickly. Then, all would have known sooner the fouls were "offsetting."

(Cringe. I swear, someday I'm going to look into spearheading an online rules clinic for announcers.)

Yes, the signal is the same.


Agreed


Not necessarily. If you're positive one happened before the other, call the first one. If the coach who ends up on the short ends asks what happened, explain his/her player committed a foul first.

It looks to me like she had the DF signal up right after her initial signal, right around :10 on the video. Not sure how much sooner she could have gotten it out there.

Good catch. She did it so quickly, I didn't even notice, as my eyes were still on the play. You know the slow, methodical signals we're required to do in these parts.

It's like when I was an umpire and we'd roll our eyes whenever the phrase "tie goes to the runner" was said (usually by a fan/parent). It's never a tie. See what came first and make the appropriate call.

I'm not saying you can't have a double foul, but chances are one came before the other. I think a lot of refs use the double foul call as a cop-out, because they weren't paying close enough attention.

Are you going to change your tune and say she did the signal too quickly now?? :D

I'm with bainsey on this. When I first saw this play I had the sound down on my CPU. The T put her arms out and back down so fast I had no idea it was a DF. I only figured it out when I saw the ball being put in play via a throw-in.

Double Trouble ...
 

Agree, because I've done it myself. I know, in my mind, that something must have happened, that I missed, to lead up to the "double trouble". Just because I missed the first illegal contact, doesn't mean that I'm going to let the players continue to whack each other, so I end up, reluctantly, calling the double foul.

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 generally don't have a big problem with calling double fouls for rough post play where both players are instigating equally. Although here, I don't think it is a double foul.

Either white holds initially (can't tell from the video angle, but the calling official should have been able to see this). If white isn't holding early, then I don't see anything illegal after that and the foul would be on the offensive for pushing off with her forearm. Two separate plays in my opinion, and not close enough to warrent a double foul.

When in doubt, call the foul on the girl with the headgear. Guessing you don't wear headgear in women's basketball unless you are a banger. ;)

I see this as being initiated by black, then a reaction by white, both of which are fouls. Get the first one, although that is easier said than done sometimes.

1 - If we are cleaning up rough play I don't care who gets it so long as its got.

2- If we don't see who starts it then I'm ok with whoever gets it getting double foul.

3- I would prefer that someone get the first action and call that before we get to that point.

That being said we can't contrl overreactions/ unexpected reactions to things we were willing to pass on.

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.

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

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.

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............

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.

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.

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.

Of Course, Approximately Is Subjective, And Relative ......
 

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

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.

Sure... if you don't get the first foul, at least call something so things don't progress into something more serious. But use that situation as a learning experience.