Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
The reason this case exists, in my opinion, is because the officials failed to follow the proper mechanics by both signaling a different foul. The proper mechanic is for the primary official only to make the call, or if there is a possibility of a double whistle, then neither official makes a signal until they've made eye contact, or even gotten together, and have one official come out with the call. Because that did not happen, the Fed. has specified that both fouls shall be reported.
It has nothing to do with "how can there be a player-control and blocking foul on the same play?", or "preliminary signals are all binding". It has to do with those officials not following the proper procedure in a certain instance, so there is a specific way to handle that instance. That also happens in the correctable error section, and the other thread where we're discussing definite information in whether to put time back on the clock. In every one of these situations, the common thread is an official's error (floor officials and/or table crew). And, in each case, we can argue all day long whether we think the ruling is "fair" or proper, but in every case we don't get to make that decision; we can only follow the rules. And, in every case, the best way to avoid having to make any of those rulings is for the officials to follow proper mechanics and procedures.
|
M&M, I hear you. The problem only arises when the non-primary official not only comes up with a fist but also makes a signal that is different from what the other official has.
But why does that mean we cant get together?
If you are right and the two different signals means you have to have a double foul, then what do you do when someone calls out of bounds when its not their area and indicates Home ball when the primary indicates Visitor. I've seen that more (at lower levels with ball watching) than I've seen a blarge. If you have to have a double foul just because two officials gave different signals and you cant get together and figure it out, then what permits us to do it with out of bounds plays?
I think we have to read that wierd case play in its narrowest form that does the least damage to the rest of the established rules. That is how you do statutory construction in the law.