Mark, first, if you're going to quote someone else, quote everything, not just what serves your purpose. here's Bob's entire post.
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins on the McGriff Basketball Board
Without taking sides in this interesting (but slowly becoming repetitive) debate, I'll point out that the bold phrase above can be read in two ways.
One is as you've read it -- the foul must occur "following the first".
The second is as Mark reads it -- it's not the sequencing of the fouls that's important, it's the time on the clock that's important.
That is, if A1 fouls B1 at 10:00, and B2 fouls A2 also at 10:00, the time on the B2 foul is "before the clock started following the [A1 foul]". (Obviously, I'm ignoring the situation where the clock starts for a fraction of a second, but it isn't registered onthe display.) It soesn't matter whether the fouls occurred simultaneously or sequentially -- the definition still applies (according to Mark).
I personally am more troubled by how this can happen. That is, if we can't have a simultaneous foul and violation (the officials must decide which occurred first), the how can we have simultaneous P fouls? Why don't we treat these instances the same?
|
Second, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Bob's right, this thing has become very repetitive. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other to change his mind.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dan_ref
There's one in every crowd.
