4th foul

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I've heard/read this numerous times and the main problem I have is that it infers that it is less important that the first 4 be "good" whatever that means.

Ummm, no. You inferred that. The statement, however, does not imply that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Ummm, no. You inferred that. The statement, however, does not imply that.

Agreed.

Peace

[just another ref]

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

When I say this, I want to make sure the 5th one is a good one. The four other fouls could have been good too. But that is in the past and I cannot worry about what I called before. I can only worry about what I am going to do or how I want to call things. A good example is I do not care if the first foul of the game was terrible, but the last foul of the game with the game on the line better be there and not as bad as the first. And yes, I might have called a couple of cheap ones earlier and I do not want to continue the mistake. I guess if someone says to you "They will remember the last minute of a game more than they will remember the other 31 minutes in the game..." that means to you that you screwed up the first 31 minutes, I have to call the last minute different?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A good example is I do not care if the first foul of the game was terrible, but the last foul of the game with the game on the line better be there and not as bad as the first.

The flaw in this logic is that if too many of these "terrible" calls are made early in the game which you "do not care" about, conceivably they could keep the game from being on the line on the last call.

Beginning, end,one is not much more important than the other...........in theory.............which is all we are discussing here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

English. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

"The fifth foul should be a good one" is merely a statement. It implies nothing about the earlier four fouls. You have chosen to infer something about the earlier four fouls from the statement that simply is not there.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The flaw in this logic is that if too many of these "terrible" calls are made early in the game which you "do not care" about, conceivably they could keep the game from being on the line on the last call.

Beginning, end,one is not much more important than the other...........in theory.............which is all we are discussing here.

Where did I say I did not care? This why you really need to read the comments and stop assuming (implying) what I meant by my comments. I said there will be more focus on the 5th foul. You do not have to agree with that, but in my experience what happens later in a game is always put more focus on. And the importance of the player to their team, the more they will focus on it. And if you think they the last few fouls of the game are not important, then why does the media focus on the last second shot in highlights? What was wrong with the first minute of the game? Why only show highlights of the end of the game when the other parts of the game are just as important? But my logic is flawed?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where did I say I did not care? This why you really need to read the comments and stop assuming (implying) what I meant by my comments.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

..... I do not care if the first foul of the game was terrible, but the last foul of the game with the game on the line better be there and not as bad as the first.

When one says "I do not care" it implies that that person does not care.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Beginning, end,one is not much more important than the other...........in theory.............which is all we are discussing here.

Agreed in theory. In practice, though, it's different.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed in theory. In practice, though, it's different.

Exactly. The ideal is "five good fouls". The reality is that of the five, the last one is the one matters most and that everybody will remember.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

English. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.


"The fifth foul should be a good one" is merely a statement. It implies nothing about the earlier four fouls. You have chosen to infer something about the earlier four fouls from the statement that simply is not there.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

"The fifth foul should be a good one" is merely a statement. It implies nothing about the earlier four fouls. You have chosen to infer something about the earlier four fouls from the statement that simply is not there.

Good is a relative term. The fifth foul should be good. Certainly. But good relative to what, if not the other four fouls? This implies that it is less important that the other fouls be good.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Good is a relative term. The fifth foul should be good. Certainly. But good relative to what, if not the other four fouls? This implies that it is less important that the other fouls be good.

Okay, JAR, see if you can follow me here...

Exactly which words, which phrases in the statement "The fifth foul should be good" imply anything about the first four fouls? Yes, the word "good" is a relative term, it implies a comparison. But the implied comparison is only between a good or bad fifth foul.

The statement you are criticizing does not, in fact, imply anything at all about the first four fouls. What you have chosen to infer from that statement, well that's your doing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Exactly which words, which phrases in the statement "The fifth foul should be good" imply anything about the first four fouls? Yes, the word "good" is a relative term, it implies a comparison. But the implied comparison is only between a good or bad fifth foul.

BITS, you're insisting on a purely logical sense of implication, when in fact most people rely on a looser notion known as "conversational implicature." The latter explains, for example, why your wife might be justifiably upset if you began introducing her as your "first wife" (assuming you've had just one!).

Nothing follows logically about second or third wives, but everyone would (reasonably) draw the inference.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Okay, JAR, see if you can follow me here...

Exactly which words, which phrases in the statement "The fifth foul should be good" imply anything about the first four fouls? Yes, the word "good" is a relative term, it implies a comparison. But the implied comparison is only between a good or bad fifth foul.

The statement you are criticizing does not, in fact, imply anything at all about the first four fouls. What you have chosen to infer from that statement, well that's your doing.

The fact that this thread repeatedly refers specifically to the fifth foul, as opposed to fouls in general, still indicates that the fifth may be considered to be worthy of different consideration from the first four.

Consider this. If a player picks up two quick fouls early in the game, the third foul now becomes the one that "better be a good one" if it happens soon afterward.

All this is further complicated when some fans/coaches/officials bring up the "star player" as part of the equation of what is or is not a "good foul."

Bottom line is that I see all this discussion as ripe to be misconstrued.

"Didja see on the officiating board? Those guys said they won't call the fifth foul on the star unless he draws blood! I knew something funny was going on."

Don't ask. Don't tell.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Good is a relative term. The fifth foul should be good. Certainly. But good relative to what, if not the other four fouls? This implies that it is less important that the other fouls be good.

Have you ever had a foul you've called been one you wish you could have back because in hindsight you maybe shouldn't have called it? You want to make sure the 5th foul on a player isn't one of those.