Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
With the fist, you've only told people you have a foul, but not what kind of foul. With a preliminary signal (or verbalization), you've told people what kind of foul. It's all about the communication, not simply the intent.
Again, we totally agree philisophically that this should not be a double foul. I have never tried to take the position that it should be. But I firmly believe the reason for this case play is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics (primary official makes the call), and to make it a little uncomfortable if they don't. The same with correctable errors and fixing timing mistakes - I'm sure we could come up with many scenarios where we can make a correction more "fair" than what the rules say to do. But then, where's the incentive to do it right in the first place, if we can just go back and fix it later anyway? If officials and table personnel did everything correctly, there would be no reason for correctable error provisions, and this case play. But since they don't, the committee has told us how they want these issues corrected. If we don't like how they want us to correct our error, then maybe we shouldn't commit the error in the first place?
|
Actually, the DF makes the situation easier. It eliminates the need for the two officials to hash out which one will stand.
I'm not saying that a foul signal or call is forever in all circumstances -- last night I had a PC foul and my partner came in with a travel except he only came up with an open hand and hesitated when he saw my fist. We came together and even before he said anything I replayed the sequence in my mind and realized he was right. I was so focused on the dipped shoulder and the contact that I didn't get the shuffled feet. All I said was "travel first, right?" He said yes. Life went on.
That's different than officiating the same exact thing two different ways, though.