Block, Charge or Both!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Hey, they never complained about "big words" over on the baseball side. Besides, I wasn't the one who queried about etymology...

Don't take it personally, Byron (wasn't there another Byron who was a word person somewhere in English lit?!?!). We're all still grieving the loss of our previous Mr. Annoying Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary Guy who has passed on to a better world of dressing rooms with nice towels and hot water (namely D1). In time, as our wounds heal, we'll be ready to start courting new Grammar people. Perhaps you'd be willing to wait around and catch us on the rebound?

[crazy voyager]

I have seen this called in a game two years ago. Defender had bad position, but the ball handler used his elbow. The official called a double foul, I think it was a good call.

So yes FIBA allows double fouls on this, as on evrything else

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by crazy voyager

I have seen this called in a game two years ago. Defender had bad position, but the ball handler used his elbow. The official called a double foul, I think it was a good call.

So yes FIBA allows double fouls on this, as on evrything else

Usually, when talking to young officials, I say that one double foul call is one too much.

Maybe that's not the whole truth, I admit that in some rare occasions a double foul is the correct call, but I prefer that young officials think twice (better more times) before calling one. I feel it's like we are admitting that we don't know who fouled first.

Ciao

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Usually, when talking to young officials, I say that one double foul call is one too much.

Maybe that's not the whole truth, I admit that in some rare occasions a double foul is the correct call, but I prefer that young officials think twice (better more times) before calling one. I feel it's like we are admitting that we don't know who fouled first.

Ciao

When I was a young official, I was given the opposite advice with regard to cleaning up the post. I've still only called a couple in my career, but they were both in the post with two big guys jockeying for position.

[crazy voyager]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Usually, when talking to young officials, I say that one double foul call is one too much.

Maybe that's not the whole truth, I admit that in some rare occasions a double foul is the correct call, but I prefer that young officials think twice (better more times) before calling one. I feel it's like we are admitting that we don't know who fouled first.

Ciao

I have acctually never been told much about the double foul. I've been advised once to use it as a way to clear the post play, I think in the scenario I mentioned abowe it was a good call though. But I agree the double foul is not often the best call. To call the first contact is mostly the best thing to do.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When I was a young official, I was given the opposite advice with regard to cleaning up the post. I've still only called a couple in my career, but they were both in the post with two big guys jockeying for position.

Same thing with me, no wait a sec.
My first double was in a girls game. Two girls going up the court, pushing eachother (yeah I had a terribly late whistle, but I had a terribly bad day ). I should've called the first push, but since my whistle was so late when I called the other girl had already pushed back. I gave them one foul each, but I could've avoided that one by calling the first foul properly.

The second one I've called was a post play with centers bumping for position. The game was quite physical and that was my way of clearing up the post and make the game cleaner. It helped a bit, then if it's the best way to clear things up. Dunno, that might be a good new thread (how to clear up the post when the play gets rough)

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Don't take it personally, Byron (wasn't there another Byron who was a word person somewhere in English lit?!?!). We're all still grieving the loss of our previous Mr. Annoying Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary Guy who has passed on to a better world of dressing rooms with nice towels and hot water (namely D1). In time, as our wounds heal, we'll be ready to start courting new Grammar people. Perhaps you'd be willing to wait around and catch us on the rebound?

I'm in and out of this joint(Official Forum)...so I was wondering what all this talk about Chuck being gone was.

So what's the deal...can't a D1 official post here? Does his conference forbid it? Is there a potential lack of professionalism talking game sitchs to "lower" level officials or on a public forum?
Conflict of interest?
I give up.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I'm in and out of this joint(Official Forum)...so I was wondering what all this talk about Chuck being gone was.

So what's the deal...can't a D1 official post here? Does his conference forbid it? Is there a potential lack of professionalism talking game sitchs to "lower" level officials or on a public forum?
Conflict of interest?
I give up.

In the past, there have reportedly been a couple of instances where things posted here have ended up biting the postee in the arse. Not sue I believe those stories - kind of think they are urban legends...however, Chuck felt that it would be better for his upwardly-moving career to not take a chance with that...so he has stopped posting here - at least under his real name.

I personally believe that we can draw him back out of semi-retirement if we all start purposely slaughtering the English language in our posts...no way he could stay away from that!!

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

In the past, there have reportedly been a couple of instances where things posted here have ended up biting the postee in the arse. Not sue I believe those stories - kind of think they are urban legends...however, Chuck felt that it would be better for his upwardly-moving career to not take a chance with that...so he has stopped posting here - at least under his real name.

I personally believe that we can draw him back out of semi-retirement if we all start purposely slaughtering the English language in our posts...no way he could stay away from that!!

Hmmmmm, getting a "little" paranoid in his old age isn't he?

I think his rule knowledge and overall experience has proved very beneficial for many younger officials(and veteran's alike)...it would be a shame for our future and present officials to lose that vast amount of information that Chuck has given us. (Spelling, grammer, rules, mechanics, marriage counseling, etc.)

If there was a post that he thought may have the potential for "trouble"...my advice would be to just say NO...stay away from those controversial posts...and stick to the ones that can benefit us all. Just my opinion.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Hmmmmm, getting a "little" paranoid in his old age isn't he?

If there was a post that he thought may have the potential for "trouble"...my advice would be to just say NO...stay away from those controversial posts...and stick to the ones that can benefit us all. Just my opinion.

Considering you don't know the story or his motivation I would say your advice and opinion are irrelevant.

That never stopped you in the past of course. Just passing this tidbit along for the rest of us.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Considering you don't know the story or his motivation I would say your advice and opinion are irrelevant.

That never stopped you in the past of course. Just passing this tidbit along for the rest of us.

I would say "fair enough"...and you would be correct on both accounts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I'm in and out of this joint(Official Forum)...so I was wondering what all this talk about Chuck being gone was.

So what's the deal...can't a D1 official post here? Does his conference forbid it? Is there a potential lack of professionalism talking game sitchs to "lower" level officials or on a public forum?
Conflict of interest?
I give up.

He's just a little afraid that something he posts might be taken wrong. Apparently, there were a couple of other D1 guys that posted here and someone sent copies of some of their posts to their assignor.Chuck worked his tail off to get a shot at D1 and it's probably not worth taking the chance of someone on here trying to screw it up- slim though that chance may be.

Too bad. Chuck was an great asset to all of us. Very knowledgable and certainly the voice of reason some times.

Of course, before we erect a monument to him, it must also be noted that the little sh!t was a BoSox fan too.

PS-please note that it doesn't mean that the squirrel has been retired too though.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

He's just a little afraid that something he posts might be taken wrong. Apparently, there were a couple of other D1 guys that posted here and someone sent copies of some of their posts to their assignor.Chuck worked his tail off to get a shot at D1 and it's probably not worth taking the chance of someone on here trying to screw it up- slim though that chance may be.

Too bad. Chuck was an great asset to all of us. Very knowledgable and certainly the voice of reason some times.

Who's Chuck?

Of course, before we erect a monument to him, it must also be noted that the little sh!t was a BoSox fan too.

PS-please note that it doesn't mean that the squirrel has been retired too though.

Oh yeah, now I remember.