4th foul

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

At this point we agree. Unless I had had multiple wives, and I was with the first one at that moment, there is no reason to say it like that. And since I'm the sort of guy who likes to say stuff like that just to mess with people, I guarantee you I would be implying something. But whether or not you "get" what I'm implying depends on your ability to infer what I'm implying. It's a safe bet my wife would get the implication, however, and what I'd "get" after that would be pain. Lots of pain.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

Are you guys being pedantic?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Are you guys being pedantic?

Why, are you anti-pedantic?

Sometimes a well-placed distinction permits people to see that an apparent disagreement is really about different concepts, which allows both sides to be right about their own concept. Then everybody wins.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Why, are you anti-pedantic?

Sometimes a well-placed distinction permits people to see that an apparent disagreement is really about different concepts, which allows both sides to be right about their own concept. Then everybody wins.

All I can say is: Huh?

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

I've read your post three times now. I still have no clue what you're getting at. But I don't really care. I gave a kid his fifth foul tonight. It was a good one. So were the other four.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've read your post three times now. I still have no clue what you're getting at. But I don't really care. I gave a kid his fifth foul tonight. It was a good one. So were the other four.

So you treated all five alike. I'm all for that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I've read your post three times now. I still have no clue what you're getting at. But I don't really care. I gave a kid his fifth foul tonight. It was a good one. So were the other four.

Originally Posted by just another ref

So you treated all five alike. I'm all for that.

I fouled out a player tonight as well. And when I called that foul, I made sure it was there. Just like I made sure every other call I made that night near the end of the game was there. And no I do not treat all parts of the game the same, because they are not treated the same by everyone participating. But then again I have been told I have pretty good judgment, so it is not hard for me to focus near the end of the game and call what is truly there instead of what might not be there or is terrible. But that is me, it may not be you.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I fouled out a player tonight as well. And when I called that foul, I made sure it was there. Just like I made sure every other call I made that night near the end of the game was there. And no I do not treat all parts of the game the same, because they are not treated the same by everyone participating. But then again I have been told I have pretty good judgment, so it is not hard for me to focus near the end of the game and call what is truly there instead of what might not be there or is terrible. But that is me, it may not be you.

Peace

I fouled out several players last night. Wasn't aware, until after the fact, that any of the players had four. Nobody complained on any of them. So, did I make a point of making sure the fifth fouls were "good ones?" No. It just took care of itself, as it should.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I fouled out several players last night. Wasn't aware, until after the fact, that any of the players had four. Nobody complained on any of them. So, did I make a point of making sure the fifth fouls were "good ones?" No. It just took care of itself, as it should.

And I knew last night and it has been an issue in the past. So what changed by using your logic? Absolutely nothing. And that is the point.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I fouled out several players last night.

Officials don't foul out players. Players foul out.