Passed on a multiple foul

[just another ref]

Forget the specifics. Generic question.


Why is it that one case play carries infinitely more weight than another?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Forget the specifics. Generic question.


Why is it that one case play carries infinitely more weight than another?

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)

[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.

[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.

[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.