He already made it. I'm always right from now on. End of discussion.

Oh, oh....BS!

:D

I'm not in agreement here. While I think it's not common, I think the rules allow for a block/charge just as they allow for a double foul away from the ball. It's very possible for two players to foul each other simultaneously; even if one has the ball.

A1 dribbling down the court holding up an "arm bar" and pushing B1 just as B1 is reaching and hacking the dribbling arm. What do you call?

Or A1 extending his arm to push B1 who is moving but not in LGP; both players fall. What do you call?

You know, I have reached the same agreement with...wait for it... my wife. :D

I'm just sayin'.

Are you saying that case book play 4.19.8SitC doesn't exist, Mark? Or that you refuse to follow it?

Please elaborate.

The problem with a blarge is that the signals have already been made. That's the unfortunate part.

That's is not a blarge. What you've described is a bareach (in layman's terms) or an illegal use of push. In your second one, it's a blush. ;)

Your wife works for the...wait for it... SEC?

Nfhs
 

I think this rule should be changed like in the NCAA-W League. If you have a so called blarge, come together and try and decided the call. Or, NO PRELIMS!!!!

I would respond, but its Friday and naaaaaa......forget it.

Yeah, really fair.
 

Yeah, and the coach who got the call against them is going to be really happy that you choose them as the only foul. Now that other call you did not give them, they really are going to think they got screwed on that play. Considering you had to come together and make a decision. Really good rule. :rolleyes:

Peace

JR, you are confusing iref4him with IREF4U.

Unless, of course, you are saying that in your case that u and him are the same person. Which would mean that Jurassic thinks he is....wait, here it comes......God. It's true, it's true!!!:p

Nope he is referring to my post somewhere else.....just another case of mass confusion and trying to be in two places at one time. By the way, I am the jacket carrier tomorrow!!!!

He's referring to iref4him in this thread and IREF4U in the "Dukies" thread. Trust me, I know of what I speak. That's why I'm the 'R' tomorrow. :cool:

Quote:

The case book isn't "rules"

All I had to do was read this. If he would have posted this in the beginning then it would have saved me the trouble of reading his post. I don't have a problem with him having an opinion on how it should be handled but to say that you are WRONG to administer it the way the rule book says is ludicrous.