View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 28, 2006, 10:58am
rainmaker rainmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by refnrev
A response on another post got me thinking (which in and of itself can be a dangerous thing.)?

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744), An essay on Criticism

So you see, it's only a little that's dangerous. Drink deep, and you're fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by refnrev
Why isn't there a specific FED signal for a flagrant foul?
Who understands the convoluted ruminations of the FED rules committee? I would guess that a specific signal for a flagrant foul would often be gasoline on a little flame, and would be counterproductive to the goal of an official keeping a game situation under control. At least, in situations I've seen where there was a flagrant foul, I would think a signal (especially if an emotional ref was trying to "sell" it!) could have been quite inflammatory. Quietly informing people that the act was flagrant is going to be tough enough.
Reply With Quote