![]() |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
||||
Quote:
Good night.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alternating Possession Question | Timer Dave | Basketball | 13 | Thu Dec 10, 2009 09:49pm |
Alternating Possession Question | OFISHE8 | Basketball | 6 | Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:57am |
Fun Test Question: Alternating Possession / Throw-in | NYBAREF | Basketball | 7 | Wed Feb 19, 2003 02:17pm |
Alternating possession question. | Suppref | Basketball | 3 | Thu Mar 22, 2001 03:36pm |
Alternating Possession Question | jshock | Basketball | 11 | Mon Dec 04, 2000 08:34am |