Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
And you feel that way because you work that level. I am OK with that, but that does not mean the rest of us or anyone that does not work that level has to agree that is the best way. Because as Cameron said, that philosophy has holes in it. I admit that a blarge is not ideal for anyone, but at least you are not arbitrarily choosing who gets the call. Because one of the blarges I have had in my career was in transition in the middle of the court. There was no "primary" at least listed. At least we followed a hard fast rule. The NCAAW side seems like we might decide based on the ego of the individuals rather than just a hard fast rule. And just like a correctable error there is no wiggle room how to solve the problem. The NCAAW side created a lot of wiggle room if you ask me.
Peace
|
I'm not sure what "holes" you and Camron are talking about, especially compared to how other double-whistle situations are handled.
Here's my main complaint about this rule - the NFHS and NCAA-M handle this one particular double-whistle situation differently than any other double-whistle situation. As I asked Camron, how would you handle this: in a dual-coverage area, you blow your whistle for a foul, and you partner blows their whistle for a travel. (Or, for that matter, pick any other double-whistle situation where you and your partner have different calls.) How do you handle that? I don't think you would come out and say "Since we both had a whistle, we're going to penalize both the travel and the foul". Of course not; you either get together and come out with one call (whose primary?), or perhaps one official steps up strongly and says "I've got it, it's mine." Is there "wiggle room" in that procedure? I guess so. Is one call made because of ego? Perhaps. But that's how double-whistles are normally handled. Until we get to this one particular double-whistle situation: the blarge. Why not handle it the same way as any other double-whistle?