It will be in the second half and I'm looking at the play by play log and it's either going to be just before the 8:05 or 1:53 mark. Let me know if those turn up anything. If not I'll keep looking at the play by play log.

It was at 1:53 in the 2nd Half. It was #32's 5th foul and it would be awesome if you could clip the entire sequence from the foul to the dialog between the trail & the coach. Thanks!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5m54z-VLSoo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The T was signalling double foul, not block. ;)

Ha! The 2 fisted foul signal!

Looked like a block to me. :)

I think the T was celebrating the L's call.

"NAILED IT!!!"

I also find it amusing anytime that Bob Huggins looks like the rational coach on the benches.

The T put two fists in the air. That's the signal to stop the clock. On a blocking signal, the fists become open and the space between thumb/ring finger are what hits the waist. Therefore, two fists in the air are not a block signal. He just reeeaaaallllyyyyyy wanted the clock to stop, so he stopped it twice.

And not that it means much, I have what the L has.

The fists are used in NCAAM/W.

I think anyone would look rational next to Frank Martin

I had a charge. Just for my knowledge, what part of that made you go block?

I have a block too...I have the defender moving forward after the offensive player is airborne and thus no LGP.

Block, IMO. B1 moving into A1. But really close, even in replay.

And I agree with the "two calls don't make a double call" philosophy. However, I don't know the NCAAM rule on that, without looking it up. I know the NCAAW version of those situations involves doing a sensible thing, by rule, and conferencing about which call the crew wants to go with of the two (or three). For those that subscribe to the the "one official has a block, one official has a charge, therefore we have to administer a blarge" theory: When one official has a foul, and one official has a travel, should we administer a fravel? I think common sense should dictate that officials talk about what they each saw and called and why, and then go from there. (I realize some rule sets do not allow for that in some situations, however.)

Is there anything wrong (let's talk college and/or NFHS) with the L and T getting together <b><i>real</i></b> quick to discuss what the right call should have been? Obviously this is why we should have eye contact on a double whistle, but how is this double whistle any different than me whispering to a partner that I saw someone else tip the ball out of bounds?

Obviously the two preliminary signals contradict each other, but what harm comes of a quick discussion?

You do not need to have a discussion to make this call and I think that would be inappropriate. At least not other than making eye contact and making a call. All this will do is bring on more debate as to why the call was made IMO.

Peace

Given a double whistle with NO prelim signal(s), I agree. But with the prelim signal(s) I would think you save more face (and have a better chance of getting the call right!) if you conference real quick.

And I'm surprised no one brought this up yet...is the T obligated to buy the beer after the game?:D