Passed on a multiple foul

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It doesn't.

Play 1) L signals Block, T signals Charge. Ruling: Double Foul

Play 2) L blows whistle, thinks "block". T ... "charge". Ruling: Officials decide.

Play 3) L signals foul on B1, T signals foul on B2. Ruling: Multiple foul (THIS IS THE CASE PLAY AND HASN"T OTHERWISE BEEN DISCUSSED).

Play 4) L blows whistle, thinks "foul on B1." T ... "B2." Ruling: Officials decide which single foul (THIS IS THE CASE THAT GETS DISCUSSED EVERYTIME (ALMOST) ABOUT MULTIPLE FOULS)

Play 5) L blows whistle, sees contact by B1 and B2. Ruling: Official decides which single foul. (THIS IS THE OTHER CASE THAT GETS DISCUSSED ON MULTIPLE FOULS)

This is really a stretch. Neither case mentions signals, but if we assume that signal=call and go forward, here is the problem now.

4.19.11 doesn't say foul or signal. It says if they both foul, here is what you do. Yet everybody, including me, says call one foul. Which means we are ignoring this case play totally. That is perfectly all right, but the other case matters more because?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is really a stretch. Neither case mentions signals, but if we assume that signal=call and go forward, here is the problem now.

4.19.11 doesn't say foul or signal. It says if they both foul, here is what you do. Yet everybody, including me, says call one foul. Which means we are ignoring this case play totally. That is perfectly all right, but the other case matters more because?

But what is a foul? It is contact that is called. If it isn't called, it isn't a foul.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That player isn't DQ'd until you tell the coach, so this scenario is unlikely (I've never seen a player wait even long enough for me to report the foul before getting chippy).

That said, I'm not tracking all their fouls, but I'll know when #11 gets three fouls in the first half; or if #44 is on #4.

Had this last night, and #44 ended up fouling out with a foul that was in the top 5 easiest intentional fouls I've called.

I've had players think they were on 3 when in fact they were on 4 & since we notify the coach first, welll...

[bob jenkins]

Sigh. I should have know better. Where's that emoticon of me beating a dead horse's head against a tilted brick windmill?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sigh. I should have know better. Where's that emoticon of me beating a dead horse's head against a tilted brick windmill?

Don't blame yourself, Bob. Blame the president of your choosing.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But what is a foul? It is contact that is called. If it isn't called, it isn't a foul.

The definition of a foul is not the question. It is a given in the case play that they both foul, but everybody says call one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I've had players think they were on 3 when in fact they were on 4 & since we notify the coach first, welll...

Ah, well that's a different story.

Either way, I'm working on not having those indefensible/anticipation foul calls at any point in the game. I've had one this year, and told his Dad as much in the coach's office after the game (his Dad was a coach for a different sport).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The definition of a foul is not the question. It is a given in the case play that they both foul, but everybody says call one.

No, it if is not called, it is not a foul. If they call only one, they have decided the other is not a foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it if is not called, it is not a foul. If they call only one, they have decided the other is not a foul.

Agreed. And if you can ignore the foul on one play, you can certainly ignore it on the other, when it is in fact impossible that the two (block/charge) occurred at the same time, whether a signal was made or not, and nothing is written anywhere which says differently.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. And if you can ignore the foul on one play, you can certainly ignore it on the other, when it is in fact impossible that two (block/charge) occurred at the same time, whether a signal was made or not, and nothing is written anywhere which says differently.

Sure there is...neither official's judgment supersedes the other. Once a signal is made, the official has declared their judgment. For either to change would be equivalent to one's call overruling the other....which, by rule, is not allowed.

The difference is that one case has both infractions against one team and that team will get penalized no matter what what the other completely flips who gets penalized depending on which official backs down (if you were to come out with one) and it would be a completely arbitrary/random decision.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure there is...neither official's judgment supersedes the other. Once a signal is made, the official has declared their judgment. For either to change would be equivalent to one's call overruling the other....which, by rule, is not allowed.

No one is overruling anyone. In any other situation, one official provides information to the other, he changes his own call, and there is no problem.

The difference is that one case has both infractions against one team and that team will get penalized no matter what what the other completely flips who gets penalized depending on which official backs down (if you were to come out with one) and it would be a completely arbitrary/random decision.

Completely flips?? One team gets penalized, hopefully the right one, just like any other call. Why is it any more random than any other decision reached by two officials when they confer?

[JRutledge]

Oh brother!!!!

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Oh brother!!!!

Peace

All I needed to see to know there's no reason to "view post."
Thanks

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

All I needed to see to know there's no reason to "view post."
Thanks

I knew there was a reason not to view this post earlier.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I knew there was a reason not to view this post earlier.

Peace

I was starting to get tempted in a sort of "watch the train same wreck again" sort of way.