For me, one cup of coffee and 9:30AM. :eek::D

The point is, if you had a fist up intending to call block, but your partner whistles and signals PC, why are you not now obligated to report your foul also?

But the case play does not mention preliminary signals.........at all.:confused:

There is only one solution...slap fight between the calling officials until a winner is declared.

Every bit as logical as a double foul.

No, you're right. So which of my previously noted options do you subscribe to?

Again, not a single official I've ever spoken to (on or off the board) aside from you believes this doesn't say you need to do a DF on this play.

I can only imagine it applying in your #2, and no, I can't imagine that they wrote a case play specifically for that purpose. But it is equally difficult for me to imagine that a case play was written to specify that one team should be penalized if the officials improperly use preliminary foul signals, and that this is true even though the case play in question does not actually mention preliminary foul signals.

So again: You keep saying what the case play doesn't apply to. In your opinion when do the rules makers want the rule applied to?

Actually, JAR has answered that question. He envisions it applying when neither official will back down from a call.

Fair enough, and as long as you're comfortable taking on the world with this.... :)

As for me, I'll back the world.

With the fist, you've only told people you have a foul, but not what kind of foul. With a preliminary signal (or verbalization), you've told people what kind of foul. It's all about the communication, not simply the intent.

Again, we totally agree philisophically that this should not be a double foul. I have never tried to take the position that it should be. But I firmly believe the reason for this case play is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics (primary official makes the call), and to make it a little uncomfortable if they don't. The same with correctable errors and fixing timing mistakes - I'm sure we could come up with many scenarios where we can make a correction more "fair" than what the rules say to do. But then, where's the incentive to do it right in the first place, if we can just go back and fix it later anyway? If officials and table personnel did everything correctly, there would be no reason for correctable error provisions, and this case play. But since they don't, the committee has told us how they want these issues corrected. If we don't like how they want us to correct our error, then maybe we shouldn't commit the error in the first place?

Actually, the DF makes the situation easier. It eliminates the need for the two officials to hash out which one will stand.

I'm not saying that a foul signal or call is forever in all circumstances -- last night I had a PC foul and my partner came in with a travel except he only came up with an open hand and hesitated when he saw my fist. We came together and even before he said anything I replayed the sequence in my mind and realized he was right. I was so focused on the dipped shoulder and the contact that I didn't get the shuffled feet. All I said was "travel first, right?" He said yes. Life went on.

That's different than officiating the same exact thing two different ways, though.

Yeah, but you know what kind of foul you had.

Not really. In the case of a foul and a travel, one happened first, making the ball dead, so the other didn't happen.

By definition, if a blocking foul happened, a charge didn't happen, and vice versa.

Same sh!t, different day.

Friday.