The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 10, 2010, 07:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 10, 2010, 09:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoochy View Post
Is a Blarge a double foul?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 10, 2010, 09:29pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
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.
Why?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 10, 2010, 09:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Why?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 10, 2010, 10:55pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
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.
And all this is based on what?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 12:11am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 12:30am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 12:53am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 01:11am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 01:26am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 01:32am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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."
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 06:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates. . .
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
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 06:13am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 06:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 10:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1