Double time-out

just another ref

Snaqwells wrote
And yet every single veteran, interpreter, assigner, evaluator, etc., I have talked to on line and in person sees it the same way I do; as does every single person on this board except for you.

But why? Read the above, undisputed facts again and tell me where I am wrong.

I'm still not sure what you think the case play refers to. Do you think it's in place for obstinate officials? Do you think it's in place for the once in a million call where two officials actually report their fouls without knowledge of the other? Is there another option?

That about covers it.

It's not like you're arguing whether it's a good rule/policy; you're arguing the actual rule itself.

Nobody thinks it's a good rule, do they? I have no problem with the rule,
4-19-8. As I read it, it is virtually impossible for a play to happen which would result in this godforsaken case play.

Adam

So which is it?

just another ref

Snaqwells wrote
So which is it?

Which is what?

Adam

just another ref wrote
Which is what?

Was the case play written for obstinant officials?

just another ref

Snaqwells wrote
Was the case play written for obstinant officials?

I said that it would cover both situations, but I really couldn't see where it covered anything else.

chseagle

How I am reading & understanding the case play, it's a JIC CYB.

just another ref wrote
I said that it would cover both situations, but I really couldn't see where it covered anything else.

Adam

just another ref wrote
I said that it would cover both situations, but I really couldn't see where it covered anything else.

I personally think the idea that it was written for either situation is silly. There's no way they'd write a case play to deal with obstinant officials that doesn't tell them to figure out it. And again, the fact that the opinion is virtually unanimous is really all I need to know.
If it wasn't the intent, then the committee would have re-worded it in light of the unanimous interpretation of the case play.

just another ref

Snaqwells wrote
I personally think the idea that it was written for either situation is silly.

I agree. But I find it even more silly to require both fouls to be reported because of shoddy mechanics by the officials. This is especially true when, by definition, it is impossible that both calls are correct.

Camron Rust

just another ref wrote
I agree. But I find it even more silly to require both fouls to be reported because of shoddy mechanics by the officials. This is especially true when, by definition, it is impossible that both calls are correct.

This is where you have the whole thing wrong. It had nothing to do with shoddy mechanics. It is a matter two equally empowered officials having a different opinion of the same situation and both of them having communicated their opinion. Good mechanics just cover up that difference of opinion. It doesn't actually make the call results the correct call.

mbyron

just another ref wrote
I agree. But I find it even more silly to require both fouls to be reported because of shoddy mechanics by the officials. This is especially true when, by definition, it is impossible that both calls are correct.

This, too, is incorrect. A double foul is not impossible, so why not one where the offensive player happens to have the ball? (Or: show me which definition defines away a blarge.)

Not impossible, just highly unlikely.

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
This is where you have the whole thing wrong. It had nothing to do with shoddy mechanics. It is a matter two equally empowered officials having a different opinion of the same situation and both of them having communicated their opinion. Good mechanics just cover up that difference of opinion. It doesn't actually make the call results the correct call.

If good mechanics cover it up, why would the mechanics which exposed it not be considered shoddy?

just another ref

mbyron wrote
This, too, is incorrect. A double foul is not impossible, so why not one where the offensive player happens to have the ball? (Or: show me which definition defines away a blarge.)

Not impossible, just highly unlikely.

4-7 Blocking/Charging How is it possible for both to happen at the same time?

mbyron

B1 moves into A1's path without establishing LGP, and A1 shoves him in the chest as they collide.

I'm not saying this should be called a double foul. I'm saying it's not impossible by rule.

Camron Rust

mbyron wrote
B1 moves into A1's path without establishing LGP, and A1 shoves him in the chest as they collide.

I'm not saying this should be called a double foul. I'm saying it's not impossible by rule.

A block/charge/blarge is one point of contact that is viewed differently by two officials. What you're describing is two independent points of contact....not two opinions of the same contact. That is two different fouls....either a true double foul, or one foul which preceded the other and made the ball dead.

mbyron

Camron Rust wrote
A block/charge/blarge is one point of contact that is viewed differently by two officials. What you're describing is two independent points of contact....not two opinions of the same contact. That is two different fouls....either a true double foul, or one foul which preceded the other and made the ball dead.

Whatever. The double foul I'm describing might look like a charge to one official and a block to another.

Oh, and I'm delighted (and a little relieved) that you agree with me. 😉

just another ref

mbyron wrote
B1 moves into A1's path without establishing LGP, and A1 shoves him in the chest as they collide.

I'm not saying this should be called a double foul. I'm saying it's not impossible by rule.

The play you describe could not, by definition, be both a block and a charge.

chseagle

Let's just make the discussion easier for everyone. The first one to the table wins LMAO. 😃:cool:

« Previous Page Next Page »