2 Team mates Foul 2 Opponents

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No more problematic than simply ignoring one as you suggested. In reality, most officials would probably go with one call/signal, and ignore the other, but on the blarge thingie, y'all said I couldn't do that, so............

You continue to misconstrue my post. I wrote that the officials must get together and decide which foul happened first, and then BY RULE (4-19-1 Note) the other one gets ignored. I did not advocate that the officials simply ignore one of the two fouls without reason, simply because they feel like it.

I am advocating following the rules. You are advocating ignoring the rules in the case of the blarge. It's really that simple.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I pointed out a couple of years ago on this forum that this situation is NOT covered by the current rules.

.......if the officials believe that the two fouls truly were simultaneous. ......... the officials must determine that one of the fouls happened before the other and only penalize that one. The other one gets ignored......

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You continue to misconstrue my post. I wrote that the officials must get together and decide which foul happened first, and then BY RULE (4-19-1 Note) the other one gets ignored. I did not advocate that the officials simply ignore one of the two fouls without reason, simply because they feel like it.

I am advocating following the rules. You are advocating ignoring the rules in the case of the blarge. It's really that simple.

You said that they truly believe the fouls were simultaneous. So you are suggesting they ignore the facts in order to follow the rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You said that they truly believe the fouls were simultaneous. So you are suggesting they ignore the facts in order to follow the rules.

Nope, the problem is that you are conveniently parsing my words in an attempt to make them read as you desire.

In fact, my two sentences express completely different thoughts. The first states that there is no definitive rule for the situation in which the fouls truly are simultaneous. The officials are stuck and would have to defer to 2-3 as Jurassic noted.

HOWEVER, if the officials get together and determine that one of the fouls occurred prior to the other, then BY RULE the second one is ignored. JR also mentioned that.

Nowhere did I suggest that the officials ignore one of the fouls if they truly believe that they happened simultaneously. That is your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is no way to proceed if the officials believe that the two fouls truly were simultaneous. Under the current rules the officials must determine that one of the fouls happened before the other and only penalize that one. The other one gets ignored since the contact was during a dead ball and was not intentional or flagrant.

Now please stop attempting to make my words into something which they are not. I do not believe what you continue to say that I do.