22 years, 1 blarge

just another ref

M&M Guy wrote
So, how does lying on the court help anything? 😕

There's a big difference between simply disagreeing with a rule or case, and purposely going against it.

I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

Adam

just another ref wrote
I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

Rich

Snaqwells wrote
How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

As my good friend Dave always says, "When it's you against the world, back the world."

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C? 😉

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

just another ref

M&M Guy wrote
Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C? 😉

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

Adam

Here are our options for this case play:

1. It refers to officials who report fouls without knowledge of each other (odd, I know, but I've actually been there).
2. It refers to officials who are obstinant and refuse to give ground. (do you really think they'd write a case play to encourage this behavior?)
3. It means what everyone here says it does.
4. ???

Jurassic Referee

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

Then you tell me - what does this occur: "One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."? Is it only when both officials race each other to the table and report?

M&M Guy

Jurassic Referee wrote
Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

Well, yea, but sometimes us humans thrive on consistency.

just another ref

But nobody ever answers this part.

just another ref wrote
4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

M&M Guy

just another ref wrote
But nobody ever answers this part.

Um, yea, it's a foul call. What's the point?

Raymond

just another ref wrote
4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

You keep telling us what that case place doesn't mean. How about telling what the case play IS telling us to do.

Adam

just another ref wrote
But nobody ever answers this part.

The block-charge preliminary signal (or verbalization) is only binding in this specific situation. That's it, that's the list. It's only binding because of this case play. It's very narrow.

Jurassic Referee

M&M Guy wrote
Well, yea, but sometimes us humans thrive on consistency.

Lots of fiber in your diet will give you the same result as this particular discussion.

Just saying...

Adam

Apparently "consistency" means something different when you get older.

Rich

Snaqwells wrote
Apparently "consistency" means something different when you get older.

For me, one cup of coffee and 9:30AM. :eek:😃

just another ref

just another ref wrote
4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

M&M Guy wrote
Um, yea, it's a foul call. What's the point?

The point is, if you had a fist up intending to call block, but your partner whistles and signals PC, why are you not now obligated to report your foul also?

just another ref

Snaqwells wrote
The block-charge preliminary signal (or verbalization) is only binding in this specific situation. That's it, that's the list. It's only binding because of this case play.

But the case play does not mention preliminary signals.........at all.:confused:

Welpe

There is only one solution...slap fight between the calling officials until a winner is declared.

just another ref

Welpe wrote
There is only one solution...slap fight between the calling officials until a winner is declared.

Every bit as logical as a double foul.

« Previous Page Next Page »