|
This is a great conversation piece. I especially like the term BLARGE. I think that word is an onatamiapeia (sp?). The word BLARGE sounds like a mistake.
I've seen this call before, while watching a game. Is it ever a BANG-BANG play! I'll mention what I think right now, and if you want, you can read the rest. I think it's a double foul, go with the arrow.
In BktBallRef's post, he mentioned that the crew chief came in and settled things. I think this is heads up officiating. The U1 and U2 took too long to decide. I'd also see that perhaps the clock wasn't stopped and the officials went right to the preliminary signal. That's why we *have* mechanics.
In PAULK1's post, he mentioned who was watching off ball. Perhaps I'm practicing poor officiating, but as trail, I'm going to follow that play into the key, especially if I anticipate a hard drive coming up.
Scottymel said it right when he said the right action is to call the foul and make eye contact first before a signal.
Keep in mind that the play happened on an area of responsibilty border. In my pre-game, I say that until it's *entirely* in the new area, the play remains in the originating area of responsibility.
BigDave mentioned that in his pregame he discusses a double whistle. I think what we had here was a double call, not a double whistle. A double whistle can translate into a single call, but a double call cannot be converted into a single call.
Someone mentioned not liking calling double fouls, but I think they're great. I know exactly how many I've called in my basketball officiating career. Four. In fact, one was last night at a mens league game. Both players said it was the right call. Mens league is different though in that they want to be able to do the NBA extra step, they want their own "quirky rules". We say ok.
walter mentioned to not make a bad situation worse. I don't know where the bad situation is. For this reason: this play is a case book play. I'm assuming the case book is written, or confirmed, by coaches just as the Fed rule book is written by coaches. That is how THEY want it called.
I'm assuming that in a BANG-BANG play, both officials sold the call. If so, I think getting together looks dumb. Double foul and move on. However, I do think you should get together and not worrying about you look. But in this sitch, the longer you stay talking, the worse off you are.
Dan_ref has it right when he said if one official saw both fouls and his happened first. I've done that before too - works very well.
I'll end this now. I was coaching a grade 9/10 women's team and we were in a gold medal game. My team was given a throw-in, after a TO, caused by a held ball, and we proceeded up the court. However, it should have been the other team's ball. We were into our offense and put up a shot. While in the air, the ref blew his whistle, said we have a correctable error, and awarded the ball to the other team at the previous throw-in spot. Of course, I go balistic. Wouldn't you? He then goes on to tell me that "there are 7 or 8 correctable errors." I told him there were 5 and this was not one of them. My point is that the rule AND case book tell us how to call parts of the game. When a point is covered in the book, that is the ruling! Period.
|