22 years, 1 blarge

[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 Jurassic Referee

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

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

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[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?

[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?

[just another ref]

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?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

With the fist, you've only told people you have a foul, but not what kind of foul.

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

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, how does lying on the court help anything?