How many of you have called a false double foul? If so what was the scenario?

Plenty of times. A1 is fouled in the act of shooting. A1 continues the shooting motion and scores. A1 then turns and taunts B1. Easy false double.

B1 fouls A1 hard, causing A1 to fall to the floor. A1 gets up and retailiates by pushing B1. False double.

Lots of ways for it to happen.

The trick is not to call it a false double foul. And penalize the fouls in the order they occurred in.

My wife called it a couple of times on our honeymoon. In fact, they were false double flagrant fouls.

You don't call A false double foul.

You call a foul.

If another foul occurs prior to the clock starting, then you have a false double foul.

But you don't call it the way you would a double foul.

Yeah, I imagine your wife was unpleasantly surprised by a number of things that turned out to be false on your honeymoon...

:p

And foul. . .

And fowl!

Robert DeNiro in <B>Penguin Lust</B>.

Yer sick!

Your membership card is in the mail.

Btw,"penguin lust" actually was a series of strips during the run of the old Bloom County comic days.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 10th, 2003 at 10:31 AM]

Here's my call
 

Player A1 is dribbling down the court. B1 tries to reach over and swat the ball. He misses and fouls. A1 pushes B1 down just after the initial contact as I am blowing the whistle. Nother flagrant or really intentional. Just a push to seperate them a bit. I was already blowing the whistle on the first contact. B1 goes to the ground as a result of the push and appeared hurt, so I had to call a false double.

This is when B1's dad came on the court and demanded that we "do something". I did. B1's dad was removed from the court. There was under 1 minute left in the game and A team had a good lead, so I just had the security officer escort off of the playing area.

Re: Here's my call
 

If it wasn't flagrant or intentional, it shouldn't have been called.

You either have a double foul or nothing.

Re: Re: Here's my call
 

Tony,
Double foul works for me, too.
<hr>
<b>If</b> we gotta <U>think it coulda been</u> flagrant, then it was not flagrant. A flagrant foul has got to be the easiest call in the game.

Well, sadly you botched the call. Contact after the ball is dead is ignored if it isn't intentional or flagrant. So you should have only called the first foul. However, if you feel the push warrants a foul, the proper way to go is with an intentional technical foul. In that case you would have a false double foul.
Or you could make it simple and do what Tony suggested, call a double personal foul since the opponents committed fouls at approximately the same time.

Thumbs up on tossing the dad out, though!

How did he "botch" the call?:confused: Damian did call a false double foul because he felt that the push warranted a call,and you say it <B>should be</B> a false double foul if he did feel that way. You're both agreeing with him,and also telling him that he blew the call.That don't work.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 12th, 2003 at 03:04 AM]

If the second foul happened after the first it can not be a personal foul...as it appears was called. A1 was not in the act of shooting or an airborne shooter so the ball was dead the moment of B1's (the first) foul.

A1's foul, if it was not at aproximately the same time, can only be a technical foul for contact during a dead ball...and only if it is deemed intentional or flagrant. If it were at about the same time, it should have been double personal foul.

If the second foul happened after the first it can not be a personal foul...as it appears was called.
[/B][/QUOTE]That's my point. We don't know what Damian actually called the 2nd foul-personal or a T. His post never said.How can anyone say that he botched a call without having that information? If he called it a T,then he didn't botch the call.

That's my point. We don't know what Damian actually called the 2nd foul-personal or a T. His post never said.How can anyone say that he botched a call without having that information? If he called it a T,then he didn't botch the call. [/B][/QUOTE]

Damian did say "Nother flagrant or really intentional."

If contact during a dead ball is not flagrant or intentional, it should be ignored. If it is flagrant or intentional, it becomes a technical foul.

If he called a personal, it was incorrect since it was during a dead ball. If he called a technical, it was incorrect because it was neither flagrant nor intentional.

Double foul or technical?
We judge the time lapse between the two acts:
<LI>very short time (<I>pure judgement</I>) ---> Double foul
<li>a little longer than a very short time (<I>pure judgement</I>) ---> Technical foul

Either way the offensive player should be punished if the contact was, in fact, sufficient.

mick

Damian did say "Nother flagrant or really intentional."

If contact during a dead ball is not flagrant or intentional, it should be ignored. If it is flagrant or intentional, it becomes a technical foul.

If he called a personal, it was incorrect since it was during a dead ball. If he called a technical, it was incorrect because it was neither flagrant nor intentional. [/B][/QUOTE]You're right that he shouldn't call a technical foul under the "contact" language in R10-3-9. However,that doesn't mean that he can't call a technical foul in this instance under the provisions of R10-3-8 instead. If Damian felt that A1 committed "an unsporting act",then he has the backing of this rule to call the T. R10-3-8 was specifically written this way("not limited to...") to give an official the power to call a T for any act that he feels is unsporting,and not necessarily then have to label that foul "flagrant or intentional".

Double foul or technical?
We judge the time lapse between the two acts:
<LI>very short time (<I>pure judgement</I>) ---> Double foul
<li>a little longer than a very short time (<I>pure judgement</I>) ---> Technical foul

[/B][/QUOTE]Agree with that,mick,but just a quick point,more for the new officials.

The time lapse doesn't mean that the 2nd foul HAS to be a technical foul.You can still have a personal foul with the time lapse,to then constitute part of the false double foul. The most common play illustrating a false double foul with 2 personals is A1 shooting a foul shot,and a teammate committing a foul during that FT. The teammate's foul is a personal foul because the ball was alive,but we now have a false double foul because the second foul was committed before the clock started following the first foul.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 12th, 2003 at 02:18 PM]

It sounds to me like the second foul was in retaliation for the first foul. Does that figure into your judgement at all?

Sounds like that to me also, Back In The Saddle.
B hacks A; A pushes B

<font color = Green> <B>" Player A1 is dribbling down the court. B1 tries to reach over and swat the ball. He misses and fouls. A1 pushes B1 down just after the initial contact...."</font></B>

If B hacks A, and A reflexively pushes B back, ---> double personal foul.
If B hacks A, and A <u>thinks/pauses</u> and then pushes B back ---> personal on B, technical on A
Sometimes, if B hacks A, and A steps toward, and makes a little contact on, B ---> "Take it easy fellas."
mick

Sometimes, I say, "Relax A, I got it."

Yep, "take it easy guys" and "relax, I got it" works...sometime I need to go to "c'mon guys, don't make me have to write a report on you @ss". But during summer leagues all I have to say is "do you guys know who's over there watching us right now?"

Always gets 'em! :)

That'll work. Thanks!
<HR>
Now I can't wait to git a team A. ;)

They play in Oakland but it's a different game. :p

British spelling
 

Unless you are from England, please spell judgment the American way.

English spelling
 

Webster's Seventh clearly says either/or on page 459.
The implication is that I may use "judgment <I>or</I> judgement" to spell judgment, or judgement, and I need not be from England.

Please cite your source of the "American way". :rolleyes:
mick

Re: English spelling
 

Here come the judg! Here come the judg! :D

Re: English spelling
 

Miss Musser, from high school English class. Isn't that good enought? :)

Honestly, I never knew "judgement" was acceptable. I gotta go do a little checking. . .

Re: Re: English spelling
 

I, for one, with all due respect to your education, wait with worms in my mouth. :cool:

Re: Re: Re: English spelling
 

Ewww, that's gross. Why would you do that?

mick and Woody were doing a little ice fishing U.P there.

mick was pullin'em in left and right and soon had his limit. Meanwhile, Woody hadn't caught a single fish. Wondering why mick had been so lucky, Woody walked over to inquire.

"mick, what's the secret? How are you catching so many fish?"

"kip yir mirms morm."

"What?"

"kip yir mirms morm."

"What? mick, I can't understand you!"

Mick' spitting out a big mouthful of worms, replied,...

"Keep your worms warm!" :D

I know that story, but what does it have to do with my education or the spelling of "judgment"? I'm a step slow today, obviously. . . :confused:

Sigh...OK, we'll take this slowly...

You said you would look into something, Mick responded "I...wait with worms in my mouth". Worms are bait, if you put them in your mouth your breath smells like *bait*, bait is a homonym to bate, which one's breath is when anxiously waiting, therefor Mick awaits with bated breath.

BTW Mick, my wife went out & got me a coupla cases of round tuits, very useful with all the rain we've been having.

I hated to have to spell it out for ya, Chuck but Dan has no qualms with embarassing you. ;)

Thanks Dan, for helping Chuck.

...That was kind of your wife. Those are hard to come <u>buy</u> U.P. here. ...My wife knows.

mick

I've refereed with Chuck, I know he doesn't embarass easily.

:D

You sure? I've been fishing with mick, and he does keep the worms in his mouth. As a matter of fact,he's such a nice guy that he kept mine warm too.

Today?

Maybe you were having one of those "Manny Moments",the term that was coined in today's Boston Globe. I don't think that you need a diagram drawn to tell you why they call them "Manny Moments"! :D

:eek:

I guess that makes him a good buddy.

:eek:

I guess that makes him a good buddy. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR calls it, "Food, ...muddy."

I guess that makes him a good buddy. [/B][/QUOTE]You'd better believe it! Ask him about the time that we were out fishing,and I got bit by a rattlesnake. Don't forget to ask him where I got bit. :eek:

You'd better believe it! Ask him about the time that we were out fishing,and I got bit by a rattlesnake. Don't forget to ask him where I got bit. :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

I heard about that...I remember how amazed Mick was that the rattler could actually find & hit such a small, insignificant body part...said it was like a hawk spotting a teeny little hairless baby mouse from 500 feet up.

:p

I heard about that...I remember how amazed Mick was that the rattler could actually find & hit such a small, insignificant body part...said it was like a hawk spotting a teeny little hairless baby mouse from 500 feet up.

[/B][/QUOTE]Whatinthehell are you talking about? :confused:

I got bit in the Upper Peninsula.

Whatinthehell are you talking about? :confused:

I got bit in the Upper Peninsula. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah yeah yeah...the way I hear it the "upper peninsula" is barely a small sand bar.

Does anybody here work? :)

oooops, gotta go, the boss is comin'

Nope.
Copper
Iron
Silver
Uranium
ELF

Don't feel too back, Chuck, I didn't get it either. Although now that I do, I gotta admit it's pretty good!

I guess I'm the only one. I just checked in for a couple of minutes, and now I've got to go find a loan for our After-School Program, write a sermon (I'm preaching Sunday on Why God is NOT like a Referee), shop for a new care home for my sister, get some laundry done, balance four checkbooks, cook dinner, shuffle two kids through their afternoon duties, and let's see, oh yes, I haven't finished the daily crossword puzzle yet.

Thanks for the break in the day -- it's always pleasant. And I especially liked the worm joke.

Re: British spelling
 

It is true that I spent a couple of my formative and impressionable years in London. And I honestly can't always tell whether some of my spellings and expressions are American or British. But, as has been pointed out, it is legal to spell it either way on "this side of the pond."

One of the more colourful gents I met there told me that he originally thought Americans were pilgrims who spoke b@stard English. Later he realized that he had it backwards. :D

We are, indeed, "two nations separated by a common language."

What's pilgrim English? :)

I was too busy laughing to ask :)

I thought the point was that we are English B@stards!
I also thought that Padgett would pop in with some Euro comment, but alas...

Anyway, I did learn the spelling difference in high school. My teacher told me this and I didn't believe her so I went over and got the dictionary and looked it up; sure enough in that very book it said, "br. sp".
So for the last 10 years I have always spelled it without the middle "e", but since even the dictionary that I have in my home now lists "judgement" as an alternative spelling, I'll use better jugement (middle English sp!) before saying anything in the future! :)

We've got the better English
 

The real irony is that we're closer to English's roots than the English. Take, for instance, the extraneous use of the letter 'u' (eg., colour, favour, behaviour) As I understand it, originally the British spelled these words the same way we do. Then, some while after America broke away, the French became popular in Britain and it was that influence that eventually altered the spelling. We Americans preserve the more pure form of the language :)