Simultaneous Common and Intentional

Adam

I could speculate and pontificate all day long, but until I check my rule book it's uninformed opinion.

My first thought, however, is that the "penalties" don't offset. Only the free throws "offset."

Again, I need to look at the book this evening after I go out and get my son's hair cut (it was either that or get him a shirt that says, "D@mmit, I'm a boy and my dad gets pi$$ed when you call me a girl!") and buy a television.

Mark Dexter

rainmaker wrote
I guess I don't have anything to give here. I don't see anything that tells positively either way. Looking through the book, it's a little iffy, seems to me. You're saying (from this q and from your previous post) that an intentional personal and a common personal foul are equal, and off-set? I'd disagree with that, but I'd go with it if I could see it clearly in the book, but I don't. Although I don't see anything that would disagree with it, either. :confused:

4-19-10 gives us the fact that this is a simultaneous personal foul. (Remember, intentional and flagrant are just modifiers of personal or technical.)

The penalty section 1(d) gives us the fact that we don't give FTs for a simultaneous personal foul.

rainmaker

Jurassic Referee wrote
If you had a double technical foul composed of an ordinary "T" and a flagrant "T", would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?
Same question for a simultaneous technical foul consisting of a regular ol' "T" and a flagrant "T"......would you offset the FT's even though the individual penalties are different?

Well, I wouldn't if it were my choice, but I think your point is that the Fed wants us to. Okay, I can live with that, although I wish it were spelled out more clearly in the book.

Jurassic Referee

rainmaker wrote
Well, I wouldn't if it were my choice, but I think your point is that the Fed wants us to. Okay, I can live with that, although I wish it were spelled out more clearly in the book.

Juulie, you use what you have. It's clear enough, as per Mark Dexter's post. You can't read anything additional into it that isn't there.

rainmaker

Jurassic Referee wrote
Juulie, you use what you have. It's clear enough, as per Mark Dexter's post. You can't read anything additional into it that isn't there.

I'm not saying your wrong. It's just that your interp (which I'm sure is correct) isn't intuitively obvious to me. Clear to you? Fine, but not clear at all to me.

I'm not reading anything in. I'm trying NOT to read anything in. All I'm saying is, I don't get this interp from this set of readings. And this isn't the way I'd do it if I had the choice. But I will do it this way forever from now on. If it ever happens to me. Which it probably won't now that I've got it right.

Dan_ref

rainmaker wrote
I'm not saying your wrong.

cough cough

Mark Dexter

rainmaker wrote
I'm not saying your wrong.

Oh, my.

Adam

Dan_ref wrote
cough cough

You're supposed to wait until she says, "turn your head," before coughing.

Mark Padgett

Snaqwells wrote
You're supposed to wait until she says, "turn your head," before coughing.

As someone who has worked with Juulie, my comment on this is: "No comment". 😛

Back In The Saddle

rainmaker wrote
I'm not saying your wrong.

I'm overnighting you some apostrophes. I'm guessing there must be some kind of regional shortage? 😮

« Previous Page