Yes, it is possible to have a double foul involving an airborne shooter. It is also possible to have a false double foul involving an airborne shooter.

Yes. In my DI scrimmage last Saturday we had the Trail go straight into the player control foul and going the other way. The Lead on the other hand has a foul but doesnt give his signal, but he has a block (I know this is different than both giving signals). The Lead gets with the Trail and they decide to with the Trails call. The Lead was the referee and seemed like he wanted to go with his foul, but thought otherwise and since the Trail gave his signal we went with his.

It was a great Blarge administration experience.

Well if you have 2 giving signals then everyone has seen it and you have no choice to go with the Double. But if only 1 has given their signal then you have a chance to just penalize theirs if the other official agress, rather than going with the Double in the instance of both giving their signal.

I meant to say that this situation is different than both officials giving their preliminary signals, because only 1 gave theirs in my scrimmage.

And all this is based on what?

You know very well what he's basing it on; and you're the only one who disagrees on the meaning.

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

In most cases this is true. But is this not also more or less universally accepted:

While one official may not overrule another official's call, he may share information with that official which may convince him to change his own call.

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

Agree. Assign it where it really belongs. Sheer stoopidity.

Well, I didn't want to go there because the vast majority of his posts are spot on. Just this one point seems to stick for him. I confess it seems a little odd to me.

What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?