Hope this never happens again, but

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
In this case, however, you have two separate acts. The defender committed a block at the same time the offensive player pushed off with his arm. The two fouls are not mutually exclusive. It sound to me like the right call was made.

Mark,

I agree with you IF the fouling acts happened at the same time. But if the Trail (in this scenario) sees a push-off clearly (in his mind) before the blocking contact, then I see no reason not to go with the PC. That assumes, of course, that the Lead didn't see the pushing arm and concedes to his partner. The PC occured first, the block becomes "incidental", and an easier solution can be sold. As Rut described it, though, it may not have been possible to say that the push happened first, since it happened "just as the two players meet." In that case, the double foul sounds like the right call to me, given that both refs signaled differently.

[Edited by Todd VandenAkker on Nov 27th, 2000 at 03:56 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
VERY GOOD discussion. However, one thing keeps running through my head..."What is our main objective?" To preserve our egos or get the call right?

I CAN understand arguments on both the double foul side & the getting together to figure out what happened first side. I believe in trying to get the call right no matter how my partner or I look.

Maybe an unpopular axiom, but just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

Indy,

If you get together with your partner & he says "I saw both
fouls, mine came first" then you should go with that. I
think in this case both guys saw only their foul so they
could not agree on what came first. This is slightly
complicated by the fact that they both came out strong,
but as you say this is secondary to "getting it rigt".

[BktBallRef]

[QUOTE}
Originally posted by Indy_Ref
VERY GOOD discussion. However, one thing keeps running through my head..."What is our main objective?" To preserve our egos or get the call right?

I CAN understand arguments on both the double foul side & the getting together to figure out what happened first side. I believe in trying to get the call right no matter how my partner or I look.

Maybe an unpopular axiom, but just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

The proper thing to do is to get the call right. If the whistles are simultaneous and two fouls occurred, then a double foul is the right call. When both officials signal that prelim and they are different, it just seems to me that you have no choice but to call a double foul. If one official thought the other foul occurred first, he wouldn't have made the call that he did, now would he?

Isn't this fun? ;^)

[Hawks Coach]

When both officials signal that prelim and they are different, it just seems to me that you have no choice but to call a double foul. If one official thought the other foul occurred first, he wouldn't have made the call that he did, now would he?



I think that Todd's point is that one ref could possibly see both "fouls", while the other saw only one. Each made the correct call from the perspective they had at the time. But the one who saw both is the only one who got it right. If one ref sees both actions and knows for a fact that the PC preceded the block, the ref who only saw the block should, upon discussion with his partner, be able to allow the partner to make the proper call - PC.

BTW, when the whistles occur should be irrelevant - the whistle is not the act, it is merely the notification that the act occurred. Regardless of the timing of the whistles, the refs must get the proper order of the actions that led to the whistles.

[Glenn Lampman]

Somewhere in the replies is the question "Where is the proper mechanic" A fould occurs, fist up move and bird=dog. there should have been no preliminary signal as to Block or PC if officials realized they had a double whistle. As described, the trail would have had this call all they way and the Lead was (or should have been off-ball)
It would seem that Rut should have taken the bit in the mouth and made the call that would have been right,,PC going the other way. A double foul in the situation does not seem appropriate. (How can you block me if I am pushing off??)
I think that in any double whistle you have to call something and a double foul is NOT decisive!!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
BTW, when the whistles occur should be irrelevant - the whistle is not the act, it is merely the notification that the act occurred. Regardless of the timing of the whistles, the refs must get the proper order of the actions that led to the whistles.

My point wasn't that the whistles were simultaneous, but that the fouls were simultaneous. We associate the whistles with the fouls. You're talking semantics.

People keep throwing things into this scenario. Neither official indicated that they saw both fouls. Since neither saw both fouls, you have no choice but to call a double foul. If an official says I saw both fouls and the PC or the block occurred first, then you go with that. But that wasn't the case. These guys made the right call given the circumstances. If you don't know which foul came first, and they didn't, you HAVE to call it a double foul.

I fail to see why that is so difficult to grasp. :^(

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Glenn Lampman
(How can you block me if I am pushing off??)

How can you push off against me if I block you? How do you know that the block didn't occur first? You don't. If the player is airborne, B moves underneath and creates contact and then A pushes with his forearm, the block came first. The point is that neither official knew which foul occurred first, if indeed one did occur before the other. That's why it's a double foul.

4-19-7a
A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Not exact same time but approximately the same time. To accept some of these interpretations would mean that you would never call a double foul.

Here is the NF interpretation of this play

4.19.7C. Play: 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 to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is 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 and the goal is scored. An alternating-possession throw-in results.

If you want to discuss the merits of a double foul, this sitch is even less of a double foul than our play. But it's still a double foul. Can you have a block and a charge on the same play? I don't think so but neither official is going to change his mind. In Rut's play, each player definitely fouled. Again, no choice but to call a double foul.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 29th, 2000 at 12:59 AM]

[Todd VandenAkker]

[i]Originally posted by BktBallRef
Again, no choice but to call a double foul.
[/B]

It's often dangerous to say "no choice" in these discussions, since we weren't there and can only go by someone's written description of a situation. If the fouling acts did indeed occur simultaneously, or even approximately at the same time, then I agree that the call should be a double foul. But again, IF an official is certain that one foul preceded the other, then the two officials DO have a choice, and would generally have a much easier "sell" to explain that one act occured BEFORE the other, making the second foul incidental contact. Having one call vs. a double foul would be more "acceptable" to most people involved in the game, even if one party felt it should have been the OTHER contact that was penalized.

[ILIK2RUN]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Rutledge and his partner made the right call. You have no choice but to call a double foul. When each official signaled at the same time, each coach thought he was going to get a call. Two fouls have been called. You can't erase either of them. A double foul was and is the correct call.

This did happen in the MSU-ISU regional championship game last year. The U1 and U2 talked about it and tried to come up with one foul. But the referee, Curtis Shaw, put a stop to the nonsense and made the crew go with the double foul. There were plenty of questions after the game about how two different officials saw two different things. But there were no question as to whether a double foul was the proper way to handle it or not.

The larger question is how this happened. Did either official stop the clock with a raised fist prior to giving a preliminary signal? Was the proper eye contact made? I wasn't there but if I had to guess, I would say the answer to both questions is no. Too many HS officials don't stop the clock properly when making a PC or block call. They go directly to the preliminary signal. Incidentally, that's what happened in the MSU-ISU game too.

I am relatively new to officiating, but I really like the point here about stopping the clock appropriately first and making proper eye contact before signalling. That way, if there is a conflict, everyone doesn't have to know until the officials are ready to signal. I learn (both good and bad things) from veteran officials. Being new, I often humble myself and follow the lead of the veteran. With that, I always keep eye contact with my partner when a call is made. I guess it's the ego thing that many of my partners have had. Nevertheless, very interesting case.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker

It's often dangerous to say "no choice" in these discussions, since we weren't there and can only go by someone's written description of a situation. If the fouling acts did indeed occur simultaneously, or even approximately at the same time, then I agree that the call should be a double foul. But again, IF an official is certain that one foul preceded the other, then the two officials DO have a choice, and would generally have a much easier "sell" to explain that one act occured BEFORE the other, making the second foul incidental contact. Having one call vs. a double foul would be more "acceptable" to most people involved in the game, even if one party felt it should have been the OTHER contact that was penalized. [/B]

What's the point in taking my post out of context? You applied my words to a situation that they were not meant for. If one foul occurred prior to the other, then obviously you have a choice. I never said that you didn't.

But the two fouls that were called in the original post appear to have been simultaneous without either oficial knowing if one occurred prior to the other. AGAIN, you have no choice but to call a double foul. I assure you that I am in no danger by making that statement.

[rainmaker]

This leads into a question of mine, which is, do you always look at your partner after you blow the whistle, before you signal? I feel like this would be the only way to catch a double whistle, if they are really exactly simultaneous. In a raucous gym, I can barely hear my own whistle, let alone my partner's if they are really simultaneous. So the only way to catch a double, would be to look up on every foul, before signalling. Do others do this? If not, how do you catch a double if the gym is noisy?

[Todd VandenAkker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef What's the point in taking my post out of context? You applied my words to a situation that they were not meant for. If one foul occurred prior to the other, then obviously you have a choice. I never said that you didn't.

But the two fouls that were called in the original post appear to have been simultaneous without either oficial knowing if one occurred prior to the other. AGAIN, you have no choice but to call a double foul. I assure you that I am in no danger by making that statement. [/B]

BktBallRef,

Be calm, my friend. If I took your words out of context, my apologies. I certainly did not intend to do so, and thought my comments were appropriate to the context and contributed to the discussion. No need for defensiveness. From what I gather, we appear to be in agreement after all, since we are both saying that if the fouls occur simultaneously and each ref had the "opposite" call, then it's a double foul. You stated that when the two officials came up with simultaneous whistles and had different calls (and signals), then the only call that could be made was a double foul--at least, that's how I interpreted what you said. I was merely clarifying that, in my opinion, even with simultaneous opposite signals by the refs, they still had a choice to go with only the PC foul if that official knew it happened first and his partner deferred the call to him. Going with only the blocking foul would not be adviseable, of course, since it would be difficult (if not impossible) to argue that it happened FIRST, but the other way around is feasible. So, sorry again if I rattled your cage a bit. It was not personal, but just a part of the continued discussion.

[donfowler]

By rule you are exactly right. Been awhile since I've worked 2 man, so I'm not exactly sure who had primary coverage. Don't let it bother you. It has happened to many of us. Learn from it and cover it in pre-game. Don't rush. Make eye contact.
Have a good season.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Todd,

You didn't rattle my cage. I simply pointed out that you took the last line of my post and applied it to a sitch where we know what foul occurred first. That was out of context. My comment was referring to the play where we don't know which foul happened first. I thought Rut's post was very clear on this. By taking the comment out of context, you changed what I had said. I just wanted to clarify it.

Tony