22 years, 1 blarge

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, how does lying on the court help anything?


There's a big difference between simply disagreeing with a rule or case, and purposely going against it.

I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

As my good friend Dave always says, "When it's you against the world, back the world."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C?

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C?

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

[Adam]

Here are our options for this case play:

1. It refers to officials who report fouls without knowledge of each other (odd, I know, but I've actually been there).
2. It refers to officials who are obstinant and refuse to give ground. (do you really think they'd write a case play to encourage this behavior?)
3. It means what everyone here says it does.
4. ???

[Jurassic Referee]

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

Then you tell me - what does this occur: "One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."? Is it only when both officials race each other to the table and report?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

Well, yea, but sometimes us humans thrive on consistency.

[just another ref]

But nobody ever answers this part.

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But nobody ever answers this part.

Um, yea, it's a foul call. What's the point?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

You keep telling us what that case place doesn't mean. How about telling what the case play IS telling us to do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But nobody ever answers this part.

The block-charge preliminary signal (or verbalization) is only binding in this specific situation. That's it, that's the list. It's only binding because of this case play. It's very narrow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, yea, but sometimes us humans thrive on consistency.

Lots of fiber in your diet will give you the same result as this particular discussion.

Just saying...

[Adam]

Apparently "consistency" means something different when you get older.