Dead Ball Losing Focus

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I don't understand your question. Please give me an example.

I agree that both players in the video committed TFs. The question is: Are these two separate fouls a FDF or do we have Fighting Fouls which would have them offset each other and both players being Disqualified. If one does not want the incident in the video to be a FDF then one has to rule the fouls as part of a Fighting Foul.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, it almost seems like you're trying to say that only fighting fouls can offset. I know you know that's not true, but that's how I'm reading the argument.

Why can you not have a normal (i.e. non-flagrant) double technical here? The acts occurred at approximately the same time and involved the same two opponents.

On another note, the definition of fighting involves "combative acts" or instigation by an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting (i.e. using combative acts). I don't believe the throwing of basketballs as seen in the video constitute combative acts. If I throw a ball in your face when you're two feet away, that might be different. But as it is here, that's not the case. Both throws aren't combative, and the first does not cause the other person to attack the instigator. So no FTFs for fighting.

My opinion: This is a false double foul. First part is the personal foul, and second part is the DTF. Since DTF is POI, I believe you just continue as normal from the two FTs for the personal foul with players in the lane.

[BillyMac]

https://forum.officiating.com/720618-post10.html

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

MTD, it almost seems like you're trying to say that only fighting fouls can offset. I know you know that's not true, but that's how I'm reading the argument.

I don't believe that is the case he is making, although he has adopted some strange stances in the past.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Why can you not have a normal (i.e. non-flagrant) double technical here? The acts occurred at approximately the same time and involved the same two opponents.

You absolutely can. Sometimes the ultra-precision inherent in MTD because he is an engineer takes over and he wants to parse things down too much.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

On another note, the definition of fighting involves "combative acts" or instigation by an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting (i.e. using combative acts). I don't believe the throwing of basketballs as seen in the video constitute combative acts. If I throw a ball in your face when you're two feet away, that might be different. But as it is here, that's not the case. Both throws aren't combative, and the first does not cause the other person to attack the instigator. So no FTFs for fighting.

My opinion: This is a false double foul. First part is the personal foul, and second part is the DTF. Since DTF is POI, I believe you just continue as normal from the two FTs for the personal foul with players in the lane.

The part in red could simply be a flagrant technical foul as the act is severe or violent, but doesn't have to be classified as fighting.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, the question is are the technical fouls in the video (two players throwing the ball at each other) penalized as a false double foul with FTs attempted in order of occurrence or do they constitute a double foul with no FTs resulting.

To create an analogous situation, I replaced the tossing of the ball in the video with verbal insults being exchanged. So the sequence would be: A1 is fouled by B1. A1 says something unsporting to B1 and B1 replies with an unsporting remark. Are you going to shoot two FTs or six?

Originally Posted by frezer11

I've never actually considered a scenario where you shoot 2-2-2 or more and flip flop ends of the court between each set. It's too bad there isn't a provision that would allow you to shoot them all at one end and then all at the other, provided you shoot the last set on the end of the team who will ultimately inbound the ball. While that's certainly not a high priority provision, if this scenario did occur, it would just look sort of weird going back-and-forth.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

MTD, it almost seems like you're trying to say that only fighting fouls can offset. I know you know that's not true, but that's how I'm reading the argument.

Why can you not have a normal (i.e. non-flagrant) double technical here? The acts occurred at approximately the same time and involved the same two opponents.

On another note, the definition of fighting involves "combative acts" or instigation by an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting (i.e. using combative acts). I don't believe the throwing of basketballs as seen in the video constitute combative acts. If I throw a ball in your face when you're two feet away, that might be different. But as it is here, that's not the case. Both throws aren't combative, and the first does not cause the other person to attack the instigator. So no FTFs for fighting.

My opinion: This is a false double foul. First part is the personal foul, and second part is the DTF. Since DTF is POI, I believe you just continue as normal from the two FTs for the personal foul with players in the lane.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't believe that is the case he is making, although he has adopted some strange stances in the past.

You absolutely can. Sometimes the ultra-precision inherent in MTD because he is an engineer takes over and he wants to parse things down too much.

The part in red could simply be a flagrant technical foul as the act is severe or violent, but doesn't have to be classified as fighting.

You did not read my post where I said that I agreed with Rut, and that I would treat this incident as a FDF: each player being charged with a TF for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and that the second TF occurred a sufficient amount of time after the first TF that the two TFs constitute a FDF.

My position is that regard to the Fighting Rule (NFHS RR-S18-A2), that it is vague enough that one could argue that the actions by both players constitute a Fight; I did not say that incident constituted a DTF for Fighting. I do not believe that the incident was neither a DTF involving non-FTFs nor is it DTF involving FTFs; I believe it met the definition of a FDF.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

You are still the only one bringing up fighting in this thread and needlessly so.

You stated your position on the ball tossing back and forth is a false double foul resulting in FTs for both teams. I disagree and believe that you are being too picky on the timeline. The definition of a double foul contains "at approximately the same time" which would allow one to avoid administering four FTs and giving possession to one team when both did the same act.

You still haven't answered how you would administer my scenario with the players trading insults.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD,
If two opponents exchange verbal insults do you administer as a FDF or a DF?

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

DTF but not Fighting Fouls.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are still the only one bringing up fighting in this thread and needlessly so.

You stated your position on the ball tossing back and forth is a false double foul resulting in FTs for both teams. I disagree and believe that you are being too picky on the timeline. The definition of a double foul contains "at approximately the same time" which would allow one to avoid administering four FTs and giving possession to one team when both did the same act.

You still haven't answered how you would administer my scenario with the players trading insults.

Yes I did.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Yes I did.

MTD, Sr.

True, I had forgotten with all the other back and forth in this thread.
Now let's revisit the question that I asked you in post #11.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True, I had forgotten with all the other back and forth in this thread.
Now let's revisit the question that I asked you in post #11.

I am sure that I answered that in my last paragraph in Post #18.

MTD, Sr.