Final piece of the puzzle

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I understand that.

So what was the question?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

The literature may be clear, but allowing for (or even requiring) two opposite fouls/calls for the same contact is patently absurd.

The fundamental principle is that neither official is permitted to overrule another official. Same contact, two judgement, apply both rulings. That is really the only fair result. Any discussion had is going to one official's opinion overriding the other no matter how you phrase the resolution.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Disagreements, even opposing signals, happen often during a game, but this is really the only situation where the officials are unable to come together and decide the proper call.

If a ball is tipped out of bounds on the sideline in transition and the L points one way while the T points the other, does that automatically make it a jump ball or should the two come together and see who had the best look/is most confident in their call?

Apples and oranges.....that is a matter of who saw what and when, not two opinions of who was at fault for a single contact.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

I suppose the most important lesson to learn from all of this is to hold your preliminary signal, especially is the contact occurs out of your PCA....or closer to another officials' PCA.

As I've said many times before, that is good on paper, but has holes in it in practice. There are several locations that are on the boundary of both officials primaries and the players may be moving directly along that boundary. Now what?

Originally Posted by OKREF

So, if two conflicting signals means that you must report both, then what happens when one signals a travel and one signals a foul? Are we reporting the foul?

Two events, one happened first. Figure out which. Neither official is wrong, just that the first action caused the ball to become dead making the 2nd action moot by rule.

[OKREF]

We've been instructed on a blarge to get together and go with one call. If one call can't be agreed upon, then and only then do you report both.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

The literature may be clear, but allowing for (or even requiring) two opposite fouls/calls for the same contact is patently absurd.

Disagreements, even opposing signals, happen often during a game, but this is really the only situation where the officials are unable to come together and decide the proper call.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fundamental principle is that neither official is permitted to overrule another official. Same contact, two judgement, apply both rulings. That is really the only fair result. Any discussion had is going to one official's opinion overriding the other no matter how you phrase the resolution.

Unless I'm missing something, there is a significant flaw in this answer.

If both officials only had a fist up, they may still have had different judgments on the same play, but in this case it is perfectly acceptable when one overrides the other?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Unless I'm missing something, there is a significant flaw in this answer.

If both officials only had a fist up, they may still have had different judgments on the same play, but in this case it is perfectly acceptable when one overrides the other?

No flaw except in your mind. With only the fists up, no one is overruling the other. One is, without knowing what the other has, choosing to yield.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

We've been instructed on a blarge to get together and go with one call. If one call can't be agreed upon, then and only then do you report both.

And what would make you change your mind on such a play? Let's keep this in a HS game under NFHS rules so there is no restricted area to consider.

If I'm your partner, what exactly are you going to say to me to change my mind after I made a blocking call and you signaled a charging foul?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Unless I'm missing something, there is a significant flaw in this answer.

If both officials only had a fist up, they may still have had different judgments on the same play, but in this case it is perfectly acceptable when one overrides the other?

I once watched a game in which only one official signaled and the other just put up a fist. However, the official who didn't signal completely disagreed with his partner's call and after a conversion a double-foul was reported.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And what would make you change your mind on such a play? Let's keep this in a HS game under NFHS rules so there is no restricted area to consider.

If I'm your partner, what exactly are you going to say to me to change my mind after I made a blocking call and you signaled a charging foul?

I don't know. I've never been in this situation. I've had the same partner for 10 years now, and we both know on a double whistle, it belongs to the lead. We have pregamed this.

Maybe I would come to you and say, remember our pregame? I am the lead and I am taking this.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... Find somebody who matters to publicly support your position and then we can discuss it further.

I adhere to the position all of my college supervisors and my state HS clinician have made clear every year. So I'm good.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I didn't initiate the argument. I refused to go along with a widely held idea which makes no sense. ....

Which means you initiate the argument. It's only debated when you bring up your disagreement with the "widely held idea".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I once watched a game in which only one official signaled and the other just put up a fist. However, the official who didn't signal completely disagreed with his partner's call and after a conversion a double-foul was reported.

And that's what the case play says to do. The officials made two different rulings and reported both fouls.

Who did or didn't make a preliminary block/charge signal has nothing to do with it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No flaw except in your mind. With only the fists up, no one is overruling the other. One is, without knowing what the other has, choosing to yield.

You're saying it's okay to yield to your partner if you don't know what his call is, but if you know his call is different you have to report both?

I'm not buying this at all.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Which means you initiate the argument. It's only debated when you bring up your disagreement with the "widely held idea".

So now we're arguing about what an argument is. Okay, I give you this one. If it's suffer in silence or initiate an argument, I'll initiate one every time. I encourage others to do the same.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...

Who did or didn't make a preliminary block/charge signal has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does. Why do you think you get to speak for all officials and what they are interpreting or thinking?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You're saying it's okay to yield to your partner if you don't know what his call is, but if you know his call is different you have to report both?

I'm not buying this at all.

What does it matter if YOU buy it? Thousands of other officials "buy it".

But then you'll turn around and say you aren't arguing about blarges.