4.19.8 C editorial change

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I can't imagine a more likely intent behind that case play. If that's their intent, it's perhaps not the best way to put it, but it seems to work for 99% of the officials I know.

Okay, say I accept that that is their intent. And if it their intent, that is what we have to do. What is the intent of 4.19.11? What's the difference?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, say I accept that that is their intent. And if it their intent, that is what we have to do. What is the intent of 4.19.11? What's the difference?

huh?

Originally Posted by 4.19.11

B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time....

"What's the difference?" Really, what makes these even remotely related?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

huh?



"What's the difference?" Really, what makes these even remotely related?

They are both case plays related to fouls. For the 4.19.8 play it is a stretch, in my opinion, to decide what the intent is. (when do you have to report both fouls?) The 4.19.11 case play is plain and simple. It says 2 fouls occur, and you penalize both. Not if you call it, and not if you rule it, just penalize two fouls, period. My question is why is the first (murky) case play undeniable and the second, clear cut play almost totally ignored.