Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
How can you say +1 when you don't agree with that philosophically? 
Jeff said "much of the time". Your philosophy as in "talk it over with your parner and decide on one call' refers to ALL of the time. You're saying there should NEVER be a blarge. Everybody else is saying that there SHOULDN'T be a blarge, but if there IS a blarge, call it by the ruleset that you are using.
Trying to say that a very specific rule or case play is wrong or isn't applicable is patently ridiculous imo. Don't let that stop you though.  |
I say communicate with your partner and use one call. I agree with Jeff when he says that communication in this situation often does not require words, especially between veteran officials who have worked together.
The part that is patently ridiculous to me is to reference this one case play and describe it as specific.
"One official calls...........the other official calls..........."
When is call a call? The word call is not defined. I say a foul has not been called until it is reported to the table.
Most seem to think that when conflicting preliminary signals are given, you are stuck with both calls.
WHY???
Nothing that resembles that is written anywhere.
This even opens up the question, when is a signal a signal? Did the one official's hand actually touch the back of his head?
The other guy never actually touched his hips, but he was obviously poised to do so. How much is too much. This, like many other things which happen on the court cannot be absolutely covered by the written word.
I have been guilty in the past of anticipating one thing, starting the wrong signal, then changing to the (perceived) correct one. A mistake? Certainly.
Forbidden by rule? Certainly not.
My partner and I have a double whistle. He correctly sees a charging foul. I am fooled and make the block signal, then realize before I am finished blowing the whistle that he is right. You think I'm gonna report my foul? Not in this lifetime.