The Downside of Double Whistles

[Freddy]

The responses you, esteemed and seasoned veterans of the Forum, give to this inquiry will help our local association trainer develop a training lesson on the topic of "Double Whistles". The initial aim is, by means of a review of approved (NFHS) mechanics and video illustrations, to prompt our officials to avoid double whistles. I probably coulda stated that better, but you get the idea.
Please complete the statement below with a brief response or two:

"Double whistles should be avoided because . . ."

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The responses you, esteemed and seasoned veterans of the Forum, give to this inquiry will help our local association trainer develop a training lesson on the topic of "Double Whistles". The initial aim is, by means of a review of approved (NFHS) mechanics and video illustrations, to prompt our officials to avoid double whistles. I probably coulda stated that better, but you get the idea.
Please complete the statement below with a brief response or two:

"Double whistles should be avoided because . . ."

This is fine and dandy but a waste of time IMO. A better use of education would be

"When we have a double whistle, I as one of the whistlees must...."

They aren't going anywhere so isn't it better to just address the what to do after?

[Hartsy]

My thinking is similar to Deecee's, in that its more important to learn how to handle them. I've never even been involved with discussions on how or even IF they ought to be minimized. All I can think of is that you are hoping to keep people from ball watching.

[Camron Rust]

It depends. Sometimes, they're good. Sometimes, they're an indication that someone is ball-watching.

If you have a double whistle on a hand-check clearly and well into one one official's primary, that is probably not a good double whistle.

If you have a double whistle on a rebound with lots of contact, that is OK.

If you have a double whistle on a play at the boundary of two primaries, that is fine too....better to have both briefly on-ball rather than neither on ball.

Unless the double whistle is an indicator of another problem, it is not a problem on its own.

[refiator]

Agree with those above. I would never say that double whistles should be avoided. Often times, they are a very good thing. Best to train officials on what to do when they occur......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

As long as each official is taking care of their primary, then I have no problem with double whistles.

I'll give you an example of a double whistle that irked me a bit...

During a free throw, I was the center, and therefore responsible for watching the free throw shooter and the top two marked lane spaces on the opposite side. A teammate of the FT shooter I was responsible for violated, and right before I blew my whistle my partner... who was the trail... blew his for it. At halftime I asked him what the trail official during a FT is responsible for. He knew the answer, but said he was looking there because nothing else was going on.

I don't buy that answer, because we all know that while things are good now, that doesn't mean they can't change for the worse at the drop of a hat. He should have been watching his area, and trust his partner (me) to watch mine.

That is an example of a "bad" double whistle.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by deecee

This is fine and dandy but a waste of time IMO. A better use of education would be

"When we have a double whistle, I as one of the whistlees must...."

They aren't going anywhere so isn't it better to just address the what to do after?

Whistler

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

"Double whistles should be avoided because . . ."

As written, the statement isn't necessarily true. Not all double whistles are bad. Instead, I would emphasize the need to slow down after making a call to avoid conflicting signals.

[Rich]

There are situations where good cadence / timing means that we can avoid having a second whistle. But that doesn't mean double whistles should be avoided necessarily.

It's what we do with double whistles that's important. If I come right out and hit my hips on a block and my partner points the other way, that's a problem.

[jpgc99]

In addition to the comments above about what to do after a double whistle, I think it would be more beneficial to give training on how to officiate your primary coverage area, a secondary coverage area, and more importantly, each match-up on the floor.

If you have three officials appropriately covering each match-up on the floor, with an understanding of primary coverage and secondary coverage areas, you minimize unnecessary double whistles but ensure every play is covered adequately.

You are starting your training with a faulty premise, in my opinion.

[JRutledge]

I simply do not believe that there is anything wrong with double whistles. Often they are very good because they show that you are watching the same thing. But in the lane double whistles are common.

Peace

[Freddy]

ALL these responses are being forwarded. Thank you for those thus far given. Any more thoughts on the general topic of "Double Whistles" that haven't been expressed?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

ALL these responses are being forwarded. Thank you for those thus far given. Any more thoughts on the general topic of "Double Whistles" that haven't been expressed?

What about triple whistles...had one in my game last night. Two of us had #10, one had a different foul on #33. The one with #33 yielded, not because he was outnumbered but because the other two of us had the best views (and before he even know we had different players). There were at least 3 possible players to call the foul on for the play....multiple defenders collapsed on a shooter in the lane from different directions.

[BDevil15]

Heres my impression of double whistles as a coach.

Scenario A: Double whistle, officials look at each other, one takes charge and makes a call, other official puts his hand down, nods, and administers then next play while "take charge official" reports the foul. I move on.

Scenario B: Double whistle, officials look at each other, then they kinda shrug at each other, they may even have the same call but they don't know and they have a meeting to discuss what happened/whats next. I'm not only irritated but I have to wonder why someone cant just grab a pair and make a call. I don't care what is called normally, but I do care that someone knows what they saw and does so with authority, not because they drew the short straw.

Scenario C: Double whistle, one official indicates a block immediately and other official indicates a charge immediately, they get together and decide one official had a better look and make a call. Again, if you make a call, stand by it. If you call a charge and he calls a block and you did so with such emphasis that you signaled immediately, then stand by it. Id rather see a double foul than have one official talk the other into backing off of whatever they think they clearly saw.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BDevil15

Heres my impression of double whistles as a coach.

Scenario A: Double whistle, officials look at each other, one takes charge and makes a call, other official puts his hand down, nods, and administers then next play while "take charge official" reports the foul. I move on.

Scenario B: Double whistle, officials look at each other, then they kinda shrug at each other, they may even have the same call but they don't know and they have a meeting to discuss what happened/whats next. I'm not only irritated but I have to wonder why someone cant just grab a pair and make a call. I don't care what is called normally, but I do care that someone knows what they saw and does so with authority, not because they drew the short straw.

Scenario C: Double whistle, one official indicates a block immediately and other official indicates a charge immediately, they get together and decide one official had a better look and make a call. Again, if you make a call, stand by it. If you call a charge and he calls a block and you did so with such emphasis that you signaled immediately, then stand by it. Id rather see a double foul than have one official talk the other into backing off of whatever they think they clearly saw.

In B, it may be that there are two different things that happened. They need to figure out which happened first and it is possible that neither can know that without having the discussion.

In C, if one talks the other out of their call, they are not following the rules (NFHS or NCAA-M).