Foul Ruling?
 

This was not my play and I was not there to witness it. This is how it was described to me by an official who was there. A1, attempting a 3 point FG from the wing, is fouled in the act of shooting by B1. As A1 falls to the floor, he grabs the arm of B1 and pulls B1 down on top of himself. This grabbing and pulling of B1 was not judged to be accidental. I'm interested to see how this play would be ruled by forum members.

I'd tell them to get a room.

Probably a double personal foul is in order.

Which is exactly what was called. I was just curious if others would have had different rulings, since it isn't a play I see every game.

Common foul…followed by intentional foul.

The first foul was a normal " basketball play". The second was a deliberate, non-basketball act that was intentional and excessive.

Going to go with a false double, then?

I think they're close enough to the same time to consider it a double foul.

No shots for either player.

POI. a) AP if shot is missed, b) B ball along endline if shot is made.

I forgot to mention, it was option a), shot was missed. Arrow went to team B. I'll pass this along to the official who made the ruling, he took a lot of crap for it.

From whom? Other officials? Fans? Coaches?

Had A1 landed when he pulled down B1 or was he still airborne?

No, not other officials. The usuals.

My understanding is that he had landed, and pulled him down as he was going to the ground.

Possibly. BUT... if the foul on the shot caused the player to fall, and while falling, he reaches and grabs, I think a lot of times that's a "Oh I'm falling, let me grab something," situation, rather than a "Alright, A-hole, you're gonna foul me, then I'm bringing you down with me!" situation. If it is the former, then I don't think that the "intentional and excessive" part is true, and if I'm able to go double, then I would. Now all that being said, if it is clearly two separate acts, and you deem it cannot be called double, then I suppose you HAVE to go with intentional, as you can't have a common foul after the ball has become dead.

In this same context of a foul followed by another, What if on a drive A1 is clearly pushed (but not intentional) by B1 off his unobstructed, intended path, and directly into B2, who is in LGP, and we have a decent size crash. My guess is that most officials would only have one foul here, ruling that the contact by B1 caused A2 to crash in to B2, and therefore ignore the PC foul.

So in the OP, if, say, the foul was an early box out type, and the shooter took a butt to the gut, and his arms naturally dropped as a result of this over the defender's shoulders and chest, and this caused the defender to fall to the ground, would it change anyone's thought process of double foul? I realize my comparison is not the same, but I'm wondering if the reasoning of a foul directly causing another foul would have an influence?

I wasn't there to judge this, but if this was indeed the case, I think both fouls occurred close enough together where they would be considered to have happened "at approximately the same time" for purposes of deeming this a double personal foul.

So....it got me to thinking about the penalty sequence because I believed it was different between NFHS and NCAA.

Looked up NFHS. See 10-6 PENALTIES 1c + NOTE, and the note says, "If one or both fouls of a double foul are flagrant*, no free throws are awarded..."

* Very interested that this doesn't read, "If one or both fouls of a double foul are intentional or flagrant, no free throws are awarded..." Certainly one can assume that if a single flagrant doesn't warrant FTs, an intentional shouldn't, either. But why would the NFHS leave the reader to interpret that? Hmmmm.

Looked up NCAAM & NCAAW. See 10-1 PENALTY f. I'll summarize: In NCAA, because one of the personal fouls is flagrant (Flagrant 1), you'd shoot both sets of FTs, i.e. first the 3 (or 1) for the three pointer, then the two for the F1 at the other end, and then B gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul (POI).

1. If the ball is dead, you need to go with an intentional technical foul.

2. The ball isn't necessarily dead, and in most cases if the players are still falling, it is not dead.

If this is a double foul (I think it likely is), and if the shooter's is deemed to be intentional, you've still got no shots and POI.

Did the ball...
 

... go in the basket?

There was a try in flight = live ball.

If this is the case, then I think you can rule out a double foul.

Common foul on defender = 3 shots for shooter with lane cleared.
Technical foul on shooter (intentional after whistle) = 2 shots and ball for defense.

The whistle isn't relevant here. I can't imagine the try had ended.
Also, if it's all part of the same action, I'm going with a double foul. You may choose differently, but I don't think we can rule anything out.

You are right in the whistle not being too relevant, but the whistle combined with the shooter returning to the ground and then pulling the defender down, seems to me that the try has completed.
So, a foul after the try could be handled separately IMO.

without seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure, but as said above, not 100% clear to rule anything out.

Players were still falling, even if he had landed, it's still likely a live ball.

6.7.4 doesn't matter if intentional or unintentional...

False Double foul. Doesn't matter if the ball goes in or not. Second foul by A1 was a player control and caused ball to become dead. Wipe the basket anyway! A1 gets 3 throws, with lane space cleared; because the ball goes to POI and is awarded to Team B.

If it's a double foul, then it's not a player control. Basket counts, no free throws.

POI depends on whether the basket goes in. If it does, B gets the ball for an end line throw in. If it does not go in, you go to the arrow at the spot nearest the double foul.

10-6 penalty 1c, "No free throws: for double personal or technical fouls (point of interruption).

I'm sorry - this is a false double foul (4-11; 4-19-6; 4-19-9)
I stand corrected - good catch.

I actually think it's a double foul, as they are "at approximately the same time."

I don't think this is all that clear cut, though, so I know a few are going to get a different answer.

No need. I think it could be ruled either a double or a false double as "approximately" is rather vague. It really depends. I could argue either one.

If you decide to rule this a false double foul instead of just a double foul, the shooter's foul still would not be a PC foul as we have been informed that the player returned to the floor before fouling his opponent. Therefore, he is no longer an airborne shooter.

"Returned to the floor" is open to interpretation isn't it? What if a player shoots a set shot (not leaving the floor at all)?
If "airborne shooter" really only applied to literally being in the air - most girls below the collegiate level wouldn't get many FT's for "jump shots" on that dreaded illegal block-out.
Unless we are forced to go to a monitor in high school - that foul by the shooter seems to create the very confusing false double foul:
Live ball, fouls by both teams, before the clock is started following the first.

Ball Released, No Longer In Act Of Shooting ...
 

Still a shooter, just not an airborne shooter.

Once the shot is released and the player is on the floor, the shooter is no longer a shooter. If it is a set shot, they cease to be a shooter on the release. Can't be an "airborne" shooter if not airborne.

Didn't we just have a long thread on this in which another poster had difficulty grasping that once an airborne shooter touches the floor the act of shooting is over and any foul is not a shooting foul? I believe that he also inquired about a set shot and was quoted the rule stating that the act of shooting ends when the try is clearly in flight (if no airborne shooter is involved).
I'll direct you to that thread for more info.