It's a HTBT, but if A1 is <b>tangled-up</b> and off-balance because of B1's contact, I'm gonna call a foul on the <i>tangler</i>, not the <i>tanglee</i>.

Yes, I have.

Nevada

"I don't recall being asked for one, but if you desire it, my belief is that the common 26 year-old doesn't have the emotional or mental maturity to command the respect of the coaches and the players and properly control the environment. That is what I truly believe that officiating is about"

Sounds like your officiating philosophy is backwards. Since when do we as officials adjust our game to the perceptions, whims, moods of coaches and players. A 26 year old D1 obviously has earned the privilege to officiate going thru the normal scrutiny that any other official would. The minute he steps on the court, coaches and players had better give him the respect the uniform has earned, along with the person wearing it. The day we start adjusting our officiating to make coaches and players feel warm and fuzzy will surely be a sad one.

Conversely, If a head coach happened to be 23 years old, he/she would get the same respect from me as any other coach would. I respect the position and realize there is a reason they were chosen.

But again, believe as you wish.

Well said imo.

No, I have never seen it called that way. I have only seen the initial foul penalized.

I've either got an intentional foul on A1, or nothing. Most likely nothing, but if it's obvious he's just retaliating by pulling B1 down, I'll call both fouls (shooting on B1 and intentional on A1.)

Isn't this similar to what Kobe Bryant was fined for last season? Hitting his opponent after a foul?
the initial foul was called but Kobe wasn't penalized the first time it occurred. and the second time he committed the same act he was hit with an intentional?
He was fined by the league both times for a flagrant foul if i remember correctly.

I don't remember that there were fouls called on the defenders in those situations.

Thanks JR, I really believe that.

From now on you shall be referred to as Clarence Thomas as you truly are a yes man.

That's just not appropriate.

Why? He agrees with every post by Rut and JR just the same way that CT always votes with Scalia on the Court.

Would you prefer that I call him Ed McMahon?

I couldn't care less how you refer to fullor. He's a big boy and can take care of himself in here.

I think it's inappropriate because this board has gone to great pains to keep politics out, and I'm certain you could find as high a correlation between Breyer and Ginsburg's votes, for example. Yet no-one calls either of them a yes-man (or yes-girl).

If you want to get into a political discussion about the Supreme Court, I'm game. But there not really allowed here, so this amounts to no-more than a drive-by pot-shot.

Ed McMahon would have been more appropriate, yes. And more accurate, IMO.

Back to the OP, if simultaneous fouls had indeed been called by two different officials, who reports the fouls? Would each official report the foul he/she called, or after conferring, would one report both fouls?

A little crisp today Nevada?

Just don't bring the coke can into it.

Believe as you wish.