|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
But the case play does not mention preliminary signals.........at all.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
There is only one solution...slap fight between the calling officials until a winner is declared.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
Every bit as logical as a double foul.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Actually, JAR has answered that question. He envisions it applying when neither official will back down from a call.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
||||
Quote:
As for me, I'll back the world.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
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?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
By definition, if a blocking foul happened, a charge didn't happen, and vice versa.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
After all these years - a first! | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 29 | Thu Jan 28, 2010 07:32am |
20 years! | Adam | Basketball | 16 | Wed Feb 06, 2008 07:47pm |
Been Out 6 Years | tzme415 | Softball | 5 | Thu Mar 31, 2005 08:46pm |
After all these years - a first! | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 4 | Thu Feb 17, 2005 08:35am |
18 Years and another First | NCAAREF | Basketball | 19 | Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:28pm |