The point was whether anyone felt this call was irreversible because of the preliminary signal, which most say is the key to when you "have to" report both fouls on a blarge.

Irreversible ...
 

Based on the interpretation, the conflicting preliminary signals (calls) are irreversible.

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Even if it is a given that signal = call, which is debatable, questions remain. This is a good example. In the OP, the C looks like he was about to let it go before finally giving the block signal. So, if he doesn't give the preliminary signal at all, now is he not allowed to report his foul at all, which most of us seem to agree was the correct call?

Debatable ...
 

True. We've been down this path before, it certainly has been debated here on the Forum over an over with no certain consensus, or conclusion.

Is it debatable? I have never seen this conversation anywhere else but here and with one person honestly. So if it is that debatable we would be having this conversation several times in several places, but it never seems to happen that way. And what is disappointing is that this person actually had an email conversation where they could have asked for clarification of this issue, but didn't do just that. So I am not so sure this is even debatable but in someone's mind.

Peace

Consensus ???
 

Are you saying that a large majority of Forum members have come to a consensus regarding this topic? That the word "call" is well defined, and may include a preliminary signal, by the NFHS and needs no discussion?

Correct, it needs no discussion. It has never come up as a real world issue or scenario.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This forum is a very small percentage of people to all officials, let alone the ones we actually deal with in life. Whether there is a consensus here or not means nothing if the people we deal with in any context never discuss this issue. In my world, no one has ever made this an issue the way it has been made here. I have heard individuals suggest we should go to the NCAA Women's interpretation, but never have anyone suggest that we should not invoke 4.19.8 Situation C as written. BTW I also work NCAA games and the rule interpretation is the same on the Men's side. So when this situation happens there, we go with the same result as the NF game suggests.

Peace

I don't think the issue has EVER been about what C is ALLOWED to do, only about what he is REQUIRED to do if both officials give signals.

Now, if you want to get into a (different) discussion on whether it's better for C to give the different call or just to eat it, have at it. Personally, I'd rather read more speculation on what FED means with the BC rule change.

You Make The Call ...
 

In my opinion, a call is the same whether it's visual (signal, preliminary, or otherwise), or oral ("Block", "Charge", Timeout", "Travel", etc.).

Whether, or not, the visual call, or oral call, or both, can be changed is another topic.

In some very specific cases officials routinely change calls (out of bounds call, partner comes in with a much better look, calling official decides to change call).

In the very specific case of 4.19.8 SITUATION C, the NFHS states that we stick with both of the conflicting calls (preliminary signals), thus a double foul.

The fists looks much better than the open hands if you ask me.

Fist ...
 

Agree.

I would disagree. There is a reason that FIBA, NCAAM, and NFHS prescribe the open hands signal, and the open-hands signal is the official signal in the signal chart at the back of the NBA rulebook. The FIBA signal looks like the official slaps his hips with his hands, and then closes them (Pay close attention at the 8:15 mark of the video). That seems to me to be as forceful and authoritative as the fists on hips signal approved by NCAAW and commonly used in the NBA.

The FIBA approach to reporting fouls seems to me to be more logical than either the NFHS or NBA approaches, because NFHS seems excessive and formalistic (verbally inform the offender, give a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul, show the consequence of the foul (designated spot and direction or number of free throws), to repeat the result (shot counts or does not), signal, and consequence at the table. The only new thing is signalling the offender's number and color), and NBA seems lazy (the foul is reported at the spot of the foul, and I don't know if the table gets informed of the foul or not), but FIBA is a happy medium (The official points at the offender with the "bird-dog" signal, and shows the consequence (designated spot and direction or free throws). For some fouls (player/team control fouls, or if a shot is involved, the official gives a preliminary signal at the spot) Finally, the official reports the result of the shot (score or no score) if relevant, the number and color of the offender, the specific foul signal, and the consequence).

I think that the lead in the OP forgot a basic fundamental, to referee the defense. He may have focused on the fact that the offensive player ran into the defender, and overlooked the fact that the defender was not in LGP (which the center did get). This may also be the explanation for the controversial Kevin Durant/LeBron James play near the end of regulation in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. Mauer may have regarded LeBron James as legal when he should not have, and called the charge on Durant. However, James did not have LGP (he was in the restricted area when Durant began his upward motion, and continued moving towards Durant, which would be illegal even if the restricted area were not in play), and this may be why Brothers also blew his whistle, and the officials later reviewed the play, and reversed it to a block by LeBron James. I know about it, because I have had many close plays as the Lead where I have had to give a charge (or call a block) due to last-second changes in the defender's action and positioning.

No bird dog in FIBA. There hasn't been for a few years.

Who cares what is subscribed by any mechanic. Closed fists look better when you are selling the call. And still, hardly anyone does it the other way.

Peace