Passed on a multiple foul

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Multiple Foul:
a. One free throw for each foul:
(1) No try involved.
(2) Successful or unsuccessful two-point try or tap.
(3) Successful three-point try or tap.
b. Two free throws for each foul:
(1) Intentional or flagrant foul.
(2) Unsuccessful three-point try or tap.

4.19.11 SITUATION: B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time while A1 is: (a) driving
down the lane; (b) in the act of shooting a successful or unsuccessful two point
try; (c) a successful three-point try; or (d) an unsuccessful three-point try.
RULING: One free throw for each foul in (a), (b) and (c) and two free throws for
each in (d). (10 Penalty 6)

I've gotta ask. Why does this case play have no significance with anyone, but 4.19.8 C is treated as gospel of the highest kind by everyone and expanded to include other things that are not even there?

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I've gotta ask. Why does this case play have no significance with anyone, but 4.19.8 C is treated as gospel of the highest kind by everyone and explanded to include other things that are not even there?

Simple answer...

Cause

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I've gotta ask. Why does this case play have no significance with anyone, but 4.19.8 C is treated as gospel of the highest kind by everyone and expanded to include other things that are not even there?

Just cause.

Any other answer I give will result in me eventually banging my head off a brick wall.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Just cause.

Any other answer I give will result in me eventually banging my head off a brick wall.

What does that mean? 4.19.11 is a direct extension of the rule, unlike the other which reaches a conclusion that nobody would have come to on his own.
You yourself once said that you wouldn't come out with a double foul in a blarge situation. Did that change or were you kidding?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does that mean? 4.19.11 is a direct extension of the rule, unlike the other which reaches a conclusion that nobodyeveryone but me would have come to on his own.
You yourself once said that you wouldn't come out with a double foul in a blarge situation. Did that change or were you kidding?

I fixed your typo.

[just another ref]

Not everyone, or at least not always.

Originally Posted by RookieDude

As one poster said earlier...just because a signal is made, does that make it a call. If the "signal" was never reported...then does that mean it never happened, and thus was not an actual call? (you know...sort of like the tree in the forest)

Your case play states two calls are made. Therefore, I am assuming both officials could not get together and decide which call to make. Soooo, in this case...you are correct...score the basket.

I am simply saying...that in my games...we will get together and come up with ONE call, not TWo...as stated in your case play.

If I am reading this case play wrong...then I guess I will miss this inteurpt...but, at least I will be consistent with what my fellow officials do in this area.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If I were ever to end up in a blarge situation, we certainly wouldn't come out with a double foul. I'd pretend I was working an NCAA-W game, if only for a moment.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have never understood why this is a special situation.

If my partner signals a held ball and I have a fist up for a foul, we don't apply both. If I call a travel and my partner has a foul, we don't call both.

Like I said, 20 years without this happening and the closest I got was earlier this season, although my grandmother could've made the charge call and she died 20 years ago.

I would like to think I could sidestep the rule book and do what I posted earlier, but I'm cursed with a pretty good knowledge of the book and a history of enforcing it even when it wasn't the easy or popular thing to do.

Originally Posted by Mark T. Denucci, Sr.

Rich:

I agree with you 100%. I have argued this point for years. The rules as written prohibit blarges. Either it is a block or it is a charge, not both.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not everyone, or at least not always.

That was 5 years ago. And I was wrong then and will admit now that I was wrong then. Unless I'm working a NCAAW game, I'm going with the double foul.

I actually had a blarge 2-3 seasons ago in a Juco game. I was the lead, other official was the trail (3-person). Believe it or not, it was with the same partner who starred in the video, and he got that call wrong, too. We went double foul. I hate it, but it's the rule and regardless of how painful it can be, I follow the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not everyone, or at least not always.

Not one of them is saying the case says what you claim. They are only saying they disagree with the ruling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does that mean? 4.19.11 is a direct extension of the rule, unlike the other which reaches a conclusion that nobody would have come to on his own.
You yourself once said that you wouldn't come out with a double foul in a blarge situation. Did that change or were you kidding?

I feel like I'm at a bar listening to a drunk recite the same story over and over again.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I feel like I'm at a bar listening to a drunk recite the same story over and over again.

I'm the one in a room full of drunks. Why do this? Because of the case play.
That's not what the case play says, and even if it is, it's stupid. You have to do it anyway. What about this case play? That case play doesn't matter. Why not? cause

[APG]

One man crusade...

[Adam]

Not even Sancho Panza at his side....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm the one in a room full of drunks. Why do this? Because of the case play.
That's not what the case play says, and even if it is, it's stupid. You have to do it anyway. What about this case play? That case play doesn't matter. Why not? cause

Why not? This one is not about two officials having visibly/verbally announced opposing opinions of the same contact. The "multiple" is about two different contacts altogether. For one to yield doesn't mean he is admitting he is wrong and the other is right (one official effectively overruling another), just that the other foul may be more "obvious"....the better of the two fouls.

[JRutledge]

Oh brother!!!!

Peace