[btaylor64]

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;591392]And, as I mentioned before, I don't believe in ties, so the word "approximately" still means one happened before the other. My choice would (most often) be the player that fouled first.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if the player that raises his hand is simply trying to influence your decision in giving him the foul instead on the "star"? How would that be different than the higher % shooter walking to the FT line if there is some confusion as to which player got fouled?

For reference of timeframe for approximately the same time will be seen as: FOUL-FOUL A foul that is distinctly apart would be: FOUL---FOUL with a small amount of time in between.

If they happen approximately at the same time then why not give it to the guy raising his hand. This is part of managing the game. Everybody sees that a guy is asking for a foul, so give it to him. Now if the "star" as you call him, OBVIOUSLY fouls before the player raising his hand then you have no choice but to give it to him, even if the "sub" raises his hand cause on tape, it is going to show that the obvious first foul is on the "star".

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Boy, this game's taking a long time while we stand around waiting for your decision...

I'm just saying I would have to be in the game to make a decision.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Coin flip? Rock, paper, scissors? Why not make the decision based on who fouled first?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do that. If you know EXACTLY who fouled with only .1 or .2 tenths of a second in between the two fouls happening and there are no issues whatsoever in the game, go right ahead and get the "first one", whichever it was. Which one was it again that hit him first? B1 or B2?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

However, if you call the foul on the "sub", instead of the "star", and it was the star that fouled first, then yes, by rule, you are both ignoring the illegal contact/foul, AND calling a foul on a player that didn't commit one. (If you are not calling a multiple or false multiple foul, then the second contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant.)

I was simply responding to your statement:

I'll tell you this, when fouls are .1/.2 tenths of a second apart, I could do any, many, miny, mo and be right. ha

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In rare instances, I can see doing this, but not as a blanket statement that all officials should follow every time. I would prefer to give the foul to the player that committed the foul.

Remember, there are no ties (just like baseball), so one happened before the other. Perhaps the second foul was harder, so you rule the first contact incidental. That's fine. But I can't find any rule, case, mention in the "Simplified and Illustrated", NCAA memo, or note from any of my assignors mentioing your philosophy. It sounds a lot like making the "least objectionable call" instead of the right call. Maybe in rare instances that can be done, but never as a common occurance.

Sometimes you have to do what you gotta do to survive and sometimes you have to step up and take the hit and do the right thing. I believe calling a foul on a "sub" vs. "star" with no more than .1/.2 tenths b/w fouls is doing what you have to do to not cause any more stink in the game, especially when the "sub" is raising his hand!

I know we aren't changing each others mind, but this is good for people sitting on the sidelines and reading. It lets them decide how they want to ref.

M&M, unless i feel it is absolutely necessary or i need to clarify something i said (which is very possible), I am bowing out of this debate. The last word is all yours. I believe this has been healthy and good for you, I and all who have read it.