Lesson learned

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Well if he has an "over the back" foul & it wasnt on a try, the clock stops there, right?
Then the egregious act had to be on the dead ball, no? To me that sounds like a false double. In that situation the 2nd foul was during a dead ball... Intentional T or flagrant T.

You missed my point....

Assume the ball was not dead (no other foul called). Would you have then called the contact intentional/flagrant?

If not, then it was not intentional or flagrant. Contact doesn't become intentional just because the ball was dead if it wouldn't have been intentional/flagrant with the clock running. It is nothing.

Said another way, contact during a dead ball is ignored unless that contact was intentional/flagrant. The definition of intentional/flagrant doesn't change depending on the status of the ball (live/dead). The only thing that changes is that dead ball contact becomes a T, when the contact, on its own merits, is intentional/flagrant.

From your OP, It doesn't sound like you were even considering anything but a common foul until you realized your partner called it on the other player....if that is the case, it wasn't an intentional foul.

[Adam]

Camron, he did say he was considering the X as he closed down for his own call. That tells me it was at least borderline. I'm not saying T would have been the right call, the decision to go intentional would have to stand on its own aside from dead ball status. From there, you decide whether to ignore or T.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, he did say he was considering the X as he closed down for his own call. That tells me it was at least borderline. I'm not saying T would have been the right call, the decision to go intentional would have to stand on its own aside from dead ball status. From there, you decide whether to ignore or T.

I don't see that in the OP at all.....it appears to me that he only thought of that AFTER his partner called the foul on the other player.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't see that in the OP at all.....it appears to me that he only thought of that AFTER his partner called the foul on the other player.

Post 5, in response to bob.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Post 5, in response to bob.

Fair enough...it was not in the OP.....but if I'm thinking X and my partner says I've got it, I'm going to be talking about it anyway.....regardless of what I think my partner has.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Fair enough...it was not in the OP.....but if I'm thinking X and my partner says I've got it, I'm going to be talking about it anyway.....regardless of what I think my partner has.

Fair enough, but I could see that going badly if not done right. "partner, you think that might be an intentional?"
Partner, "Sure."
Partner then inexplicably calls an intentional for the OTB foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by tref

Well if he has an "over the back" foul & it wasnt on a try, the clock stops there, right?
Then the egregious act had to be on the dead ball, no? To me that sounds like a false double. In that situation the 2nd foul was during a dead ball... Intentional T or flagrant T.

The play isn't dead until the whistle is blown. According to you, you all blew the whistle at the same time, AFTER B34 backed A34 out. Therefore, B34's action did not come after the whistle, so it is NOT a dead ball foul.

BTW, there's no such thing as an "over the back" foul.