Xavier vs Kansas State

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't know -- I found double foul in the definitions in about 3 seconds.

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

Of course. That particular play is covered specifically under NFHS rules 2-6 and 4-19-7(a).

The rules provide coverage for 2 fouls occuring at the same time. They do NOT however provide coverage for a violation and a foul occuring at the same time.

Any official with a little rules knowledge should come to the same conclusion without needing a case play.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You mean to say that without that stupid case play, you would have come to the conclusion on your own that two different officials calling block and charge on the same play should be reported as a double foul?

Of course. It meets the definition. What the case play does is remind officials that you can't ignore one and enforce the other if both are called.

Before we go down this road again, let me say I have no intention of revisiting any ground beyond this post.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Of course. That particular play is covered specifically under NFHS rules 2-6 and 4-19-7(a).

The rules provide coverage for 2 fouls occuring at the same time. They do NOT however provide coverage for a violation and a foul occuring at the same time.

Any official with a little rules knowledge should come to the same conclusion without needing a case play.

It is a stretch to link 2-6 to this play. No one is recommending overruling or setting aside anything.

I think you mean 4-19-8a.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is a stretch to link 2-6 to this play. No one is recommending overruling or setting aside anything.

Why is it a stretch? That rule tells you that you can't set either foul call aside AFTER they're BOTH made. Isn't that contrary to what you're advocating?

And before we go down this road again, let me say I have no intention of revisiting any ground beyond this post.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why is it a stretch? That rule tells you that you can't set either foul call aside AFTER they're BOTH made. Isn't that contrary to what you're advocating?

2-6 doesn't say this at all.

Actually what it says is that one may not set aside a decision made by another.

It does not say that one official may not make a signal, then change his own call when he sees that his partner has something else, or for any other reason for that matter.

This happens quite frequently.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Define "goes into the backcourt".

I think it's safe to define it concurrently with "gains backcourt status."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Concurrently

One of my favorite words. It always bring a smile to my face when I hear it from a judge who is sentencing me.