Simultaneous Interference?

Forum Questions

Question File

DuBan's Answer:

Kratz's Answer:

McCarrick's Answer:

Riti's Answer:

By rule, you could assess Interference technical fouls on both players (I would argue that simultaneous Conduct fouls are probably more appropriate in this situation).  However, depending on the agregiousness of the action, and whether or not this has been going on during the game prior to this, the tone of the game,  how agressive the players involved have been and are being, it might be better to use some game management and talk with both players by saying something like  "don't restrict each others movement" (never tell a specific player or players to stop an illegial action). Or you could simply kill the play for the interference by the player whose team was originally fouled and then speak with both players before the restart.

However, it this action rises to a level where you think penalties on both players are warrented then given the flag-down slow whistle, this action would cause an immediate whistle to stop play and both players would serve 30 second technical fouls.  If the original flag down was for a technical foul then all three players would be locked in for the full 30 seconds as these are simultaneous fouls (i.e. all three penaties start on the same whistle).  If the original flag was for a personal foul then both players flagged for Interference would be locked in for the full 30 seconds and the player with the personal would would be locked in for the his first 30 seconds.

If there was no flag down situation and you felt that the two players both warrented fouls for Interference then they would serve the full 30 seconds as these are simultaneouls foulds.

SECTION 7 INTERFERENCE A player shall not interfere in any manner with the free movement of an opponent, except when that opponent has possession of the ball, the ball is in flight and within 5 yards of the players, or both players are within 5 yards of a loose ball.

Tyma's Answer:

I agree with Rick's point of view regarding how to employ simultaneous loose-ball fouls to make a point about behavior that you want to stop.  (The only exception is that the USC is releasable when it is for repeated occurrence of a technical foul [5.10.g].)

But I think the questioner has a different circumstance:  the two fouls occur while there is a flag down, if I understand it correctly.

In such a case, a foul by the initially offended team ends the slow whistle, regardless of any scoring play.  Because there was a flag down and the technicals occurred at the same time (remembering, of course, that simultaneous fouls are those by both teams that occur on the same live-ball play, and rarely at the same time), everybody could potentially serve time -- this is a game-management opportunity for the officials.

Had the initially offended team interfered first, that would have ended the play; the second interference would not matter because the play is dead -- nobody would serve for interference.  Similarly, had the initially offending team interfered first, that, too would end the play (unless a scoring chance was in progress); the second interference would not matter because play had ended.  But in this case, only one miscreant would serve time for interference; and a person would be justified in protesting the unfairness of the result.

On the other hand, if the officials were to rule that the interference occurred both ways at exactly the same time, the interference fouls end the slow whistle.  If the behavior of the two players away from the ball involved checking sticks with some force, slashing on both is a possibility.  In the same vein, if it involved body checking, unnecessary roughness is a possibility.  Finally, if any verbal or gesturing stuff accompanied the behavior, a two-minute unsportsmanlike conduct foul is a possibility.  All of these felony charges fail to fit the crime.  But consider a stretch of the rules by which you award conduct fouls to both players and make them serve.  Under 7.2.d, both miscreants would serve 30 seconds of non-releasable time; this would suit both the nature of the crime and the involvement of both sides.  Should a coach know the rules well enough to complain that the conduct fouls should not be time-serving, you simply offer that it is a less unpalatable option than 2-minute USCs, which you could have called.  Bench complaining would likely cease at that point.

So, using the rules as a game-management tool, you stretch the rules a tiny bit on a technicality to make the point about behavior yow wish stopped -- it might sting just enough that the behavior won't be repeated.

&nbsp;

Answer File

Question Answered