4th foul

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

I know this is hard for you to understand. You live in fantasy land and think everything is always perfect when it comes to the rules or the job you do on the court.

I guess I see your point.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know this is hard for you to understand. You live in fantasy land and think everything is always perfect when it comes to the rules or the job you do on the court.

I guess I see your point.

Peace

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

You took two completely different statements and tried to marry them together. That is not a contradiction unless I made the same statement in the same post or topic. You do not understand because you do not know the difference between a statement and a larger context. Not caring about what I called before does not mean I am going to call the last foul totally incorrectly as you have implied. I simply said that what I did before does not matter if the last foul is bad. I stand by that statement and just like teams do not focus on the first few minutes of the game the same way they do at the end of the game.

A good example of this was the Big 12 Championship football game. There was a play in the 4th Quarter that was probably a bad call and the play stood and helped result Nebraska to take the lead based on the field position and events after this call. But what was the focus of this game and the outcome? What happen on what appeared to be the very last play of the game and when the play was reviewed the media, coach and players focused on this "last play" and you almost heard nothing about the bad call early in the quarter which had in my opinion a much bigger impact on the possible outcome. And as a result of what happen on the last play, conspiracy theories have been suggested, official's judgments have been in question and the entire BCS situation has been called into question. But you hear nothing about how Texas might have lost the game and why the officials that were so in on the fix "screwed" Texas in an earlier play of the game. Same applies to what we are talking about here.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

You'll get used to it eventually.

[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.