Simultaneous whistles

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Quit being silly. You KNOW that if it is for two separate acts, by rule, the ball is dead on the first one. So you MUST figure out which occurred first.

So now it is impossible that the two separate acts occurred at the same time? And what if they're not exactly the same? 4-19-11 says at approximately the same time.

In the blarge situation that you're alluding to, it is one single act with two expressed judgments....neither of which could have possible occurred before the other AND such that neither official's judgement is allowed to override the other.

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Because that's the way it is (or is interpreted to be).

NCAAM and NCAAW have the same woriding on double foul (and it's at least approximately the same as FED). Yet, one interprets it one way and one the other.

Work to change it if you like. Write your state. Write the FED. Propose a rules clarification. etc. But please, please, please stop bringing it up here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because that's the way it is (or is interpreted to be).

I'm asking a serious question. (this time) Is this interpretation (confer, don't confer) written anywhere? I have yet to see it. I just keep getting:
Because that's the way it is.

Work to change it if you like. Propose a rules clarification. etc. But please, please, please stop bringing it up here.

I thought that's what I was doing by bringing it up here. It's happened before.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Seriously, you're going to have to ask the rules comittee, or submit a $#%#^%$ rules change.

[Adam]

Yes, you're the ONLY one I know who reads any ambiguity into the NFHS case play. To everybody else I know, the meaning is clear. Some don't like it, others understand the reasoning; but they all agree with its application.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, you're the ONLY one I know who reads any ambiguity into the NFHS case play. To everybody else I know, the meaning is clear. Some don't like it, others understand the reasoning; but they all agree with its application.

And yet we all seem to agree it's okay to sweep the multiple foul case under the rug.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And yet we all seem to agree it's okay to sweep the multiple foul case under the rug.

Let's take a look at the end result.

On Friday night, I had the same thing happen as was listed in the OP (except I was the lead). Double whistle, my partner had a push on A-1, and I had a block on A-2. My partner and I conversed, and we determined that the A-1 foul he saw came first. Since he had to administer the free throws, I reported the foul.

I reported A-1. B-3 is shooting two.

Let's say, instead, I reported A-1 and A-2. B-3 would still be shooting two, and I'd have a little unnecessary messy confusion to deal with. B-3 is getting his justified free throws, so it doesn't make sense to manage the game otherwise. That's why we pick one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's take a look at the end result.

On Friday night, I had the same thing happen as was listed in the OP (except I was the lead). Double whistle, my partner had a push on A-1, and I had a block on A-2. My partner and I conversed, and we determined that the A-1 foul he saw came first. Since he had to administer the free throws, I reported the foul.

I reported A-1. B-3 is shooting two.

Let's say, instead, I reported A-1 and A-2. B-3 would still be shooting two, and I'd have a little unnecessary messy confusion to deal with. B-3 is getting his justified free throws, so it doesn't make sense to manage the game otherwise. That's why we pick one.

And it's okay with me, and everybody else, to pick one in this case, even if it was originally called as two.

But this is contrary to the case play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Let's take a look at the end result.

On Friday night, I had the same thing happen as was listed in the OP (except I was the lead). Double whistle, my partner had a push on A-1, and I had a block on A-2. My partner and I conversed, and we determined that the A-1 foul he saw came first. Since he had to administer the free throws, I reported the foul.

I reported A-1. B-3 is shooting two.
....

If your partner had a foul on A1 then your partner should be reporting it. Why did he HAVE to administer the free throws?

I can't think of a good why one official should be reporting another official's foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If your partner had a foul on A1 then your partner should be reporting it. Why did he HAVE to administer the free throws?

I can't think of a good why one official should be reporting another official's foul.

Here's why. He was the trail, and on the required switch, would administer the free throws. He went to the end line to administer, and I hustled to the reporting area and back to the trail position.

When my partner tells me he has a foul, I trust him.