Guidance?
 

I worked a summer HS basketball tournament this weekend. Team A had an inbounds play under their basket. I was lead. I started my count and called a 5 second violation. The Trail came to me and told me that I made a mistake because he had his hand up indicating subs were coming into the game so I should not have administered the throw-in. I agree I made a huge mistake here. But, he then told me we should give the ball back to Team A since I made a mistake. I told him I didn't think we could because it's not a correctable error. It's an error on my part but I still gave A1 a full five seconds to get the throw in on the court. He told me to do whatever I wanted to do but he just wanted to point it out to me. I gave the ball to B because of the violation and we went on. Is this correct or could we have gone back and done it again?

Blech

He screwed up because he let you start the game through his stop sign without a whislte.

You screwed up because you didn't see his stop sign.

Your partner should have just turned around & headed downcourt when you blew the whistle on the 5 second count. But he didn't, he screwed up twice. You only screwed up once. :)

You got it right, the play stands.

Give the ball back to A. Next time, look at your partner before administering the throw-in.

As you can see, two very knowledgeable officials already have given you different rulings. I don't think there is anything written that will settle this issue and the R will just have to make a judgement.

I'm not saying which one is right becasue I just don't know but I'll make a few pionts that come to mind...

• If A had players being subbed out and none where near the throwin at the time and B had all 5 players guarding the remaining players from A, A would have a very good case for getting the ball back.
• If it was B who had players being subbed, B really earned the ball.
• The primary mistake was by the official administering the throwin...the other, presumably, had the prescribed signal up to stop the action...while the whistle is nice and recommended (and I do it when it might be unclear), I don't believe it is actually required.
• The ball did become live as the throwin was administered.
• The ball was dead because of the hand up.

All this adds up to a big hmmm.

Did the substitution process actually occur? Did you have more the 5 team members from one team on the floor during the live ball once you administered the throw-in?

What mess!!!

Lesson learned is to ALWAYS look at your partner before putting the ball in play. Also, you must pregame that a hand up means "DON'T GO."

It doesn't matter who you give the ball to in this situation, one team is rightly going to be upset.

I agree with Dan. This isn't one of the 5 correctable errors listed. It's an officials mistake. There's no provision anywhere in the rules to go back and rectify an official's mistake. You have to follow rule 9-2PENALTY.

There were no subs beckoned either, as per the original post.

Did he beckon or not? Were subs entering and replacements leaving or not? That would definitely be an issue.

The whole play is a cluster**** on the part of both offiicals. :(

I don't know if the subs were becloned or not. I do know that there was no horn sounded so I, as lead and administering the throw-in, was not aware of the subs. Since this is a summer tourney with a running clock we did pre-game that we would try and keep the game flowing as much as possible. All this being said, I admit the biggest error was mine for not doing the "four point check" (partner, partner, table, clock) before administering. I'm glad we do summer games because I hope not to make this mistake during the regular season. Thanks for the input.

Yup, I'll go along with that. If subs were beckoned by the trail and you had players running all over the floor, then I agree that a re-set is probably the best course.

If the T just had a hand in the air though, I think that you gotta go with the violation. The trail made a mistake, but his mistake wasn't of the correctable ilk and didn't really have any bearing on the play either.

Good going, Johnny Rao!
I gotta believe that sitch is gone from your game, ...forever.
And, it didn't even hurt you that badly. ;)
mick

Which is what I understood the play to be. Otherwise, if you're going to stick with the 5 second call, you have to also throw some T's for too many players on the floor. Can't call one infraction and ignore another.

Johnny will have to clarify.

I guess I'm venturing way out onto the thin, non-rules-backed ice here, but if I'm T (well, if I'm T I'm going to know that L gave the ball and I'm hitting the whistle, but....) I'm going to L and tell him, my hand was up, Partner. That ball never became live. Period.

Yup, you are venturing into non-rules backed territory. The ball became live as soon as the lead placed it at the disposal of the thrower. The Trail's hand in the air doesn't kill the play. The only way the trail can kill it is by blowing his whistle before the L called the violation. That didn't happen, so.......

If you can whistle it before the violation is called, fine, go ahead and re-set the play. If not, then there's no rule that I know of that will allow you to re-set it after the violation is called.

Sometimes the rules won't allow us to do what we think is "fair". Gotta remember though that we gotta be "fair" to the defensive team too. They played good defense to cause the violation; they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.

Didn't there used to be a rule or case that said the referee could declare that the ball never became live?

Not that I can remember, Chuck.

Can't change history, unless it's a correctable error or a timer/scorer mistake.

While I agree...OUCH.

On the 1 to 10 scale for angry people in the gym...you just went from 5 to 50 :eek:

I can honestly say this is one goof I have never made...yet :(

As much as you want to be fair...sounds like you did the right thing.

I can imagine that the trail might not have been in a position to see the ball in the hands of the thrower-in, as opposed to the hands of the lead. So he wouldn't have hit the whistle to alert the lead of the problem. That being said, I think both refs need to share the blame on this. Tony's "cluster*" characterization is probably appropriate, although you'll never be able to quote me directly on that, I hope!

I think this is probably one of those things where I'd risk a reprimand in my permanent record, and go with a re-set. I just can't imagine turning the ball over in this situation.

This is all great information. We have another tournament this weekend and I will use this situation as a good starting point for a discussion. Hopefully we will have more of our officials this weekend because I count at least three situations that happened to me this weekend that I learned from. I messed two up and one I got right but I may not call it the same way in a close game in a crowded gym in January. I'll explain if anyone is interested.

Let's review the facts:

L puts ball in play on a throw-in for team A. He then calls a 5 second violation. Then the T comes in & informs the L that for some unkown reason the ball should not have been made live. L sticks with his call, gives the ball to team B.

Your decision is not based on any rule that I can see. So based on what definition of fair play are you going to take the ball away from team B and give it to A?

I recant my earlier statement about skating on thin, non-rules-backed ice. Upon further review, it appears that there is a solid basis for claiming that the ball never became live and the violation should be ignored.

It is certainly true that 6-1-2-b says “The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.” That sounds pretty authoritative, pretty absolute. It sounds that way because the rules committee opted not to complicate 6-1-2 with details about when it isn't true. But they did attach the following note directly to 6-1-2: "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." So we need to consider that there are circumstances where some other rule takes precedence over 6-1-2.

5-8-2-c & d say: "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: ...Stops play: ...Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live." or "...For any other situations or any emergency." Whether you consider stopping play to bring in subs to be an "unusual delay" or just "any other situation," the official is clearly permitted to do it, and by doing so has caused time-out.

Now you may certainly argue that while the T did stop play, the L subsequently started it again by giving the thrower the ball. But 5-9-1 says: "After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out."

How does an official stop play and cause time-out to occur? By putting his hand up and blowing his whistle. How does an official signal continued time-out? By keeping his hand up. Does continued time-out indicate a dead ball, of course it does.

The argument was made that since the T didn't sound his whistle to stop the throw-in, the ball became live and the subsequent play must stand. However, "The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)." Since the ball cannot be live during continued time-out, and our intrepid T was signaling continued time-out, "it is already dead", lack of whistle not withstanding.

Also, consider the equal authority clause: “No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s)” there is at least one notable exception, the timer’s decision to start the clock “as per rule” is specifically set aside by the official’s decision to signal continued time-out. And if the clock cannot start, how can we sensibly argue that the ball should be live anyway? To do so would force the thrower into a nonsensical paradox: The ball becomes live when handed to the thrower, but the clock cannot start even if the thrower passes the ball inbounds. The only thing he can do successfully is violate. Such an argument also ignores 6-1-2-Note.

So, when an official is signaling continued time-out, and his partner erroneously puts the ball at the disposal of the thrower, that official has very solid backing to rule that the ball never became live and any subsequent action (except perhaps intentional and flagrant fouls) should be ignored.

I'm figuring from the OP that it's possible that the reason the Team A player didn't get the ball into play was because there weren't enough other Team A players available, because some were subbing out, or they weren't paying attention because they didn't realize that the ball was live and the ref was counting. (that may very well be a run-on sentence). I agree that by rule, a do-over is not acceptable. By rule, it's just one of those Tough Beans situations that I talked about in my series on Correctable Errors, and the ref just has to live with the shame and ignominy.

But if I thought that the reason for the 5-second violation was that I shouldn't have made the ball live, and if it was summer ball, and if it wasn't a championship tournament game, and if there wasn't an evaluator there watching, I think I'd rather risk the wrath of the Team B coach, than the Team A coach. I'm not saying anyone else should follow my lead on this, just that I think it's what I'd do.

That being said, I'd be interested in anyone's solution to this hypothetical:

Thrower-in takes the ball, lead starts counting. Thrower-in realizes that subs are still coming onto the court, and hands the ball back to the lead. What should lead do?

Stop counting, take the ball, and wait for his partner to finish bringing in the subs. :rolleyes:

1) Yup, the the rules do say dat.

2)OK

3) That's nice.....but play was never stopped <b>during</b> the throw-in. It was stopped for a 5-second violation by the administering official.

4) Nope, I'm telling you that the trail <b>never</b> stopped play. Says so right in the first post of this thread. The only "stopped play" in this situation came when the lead stopped play for the 5-second violation by blowing his whistle. The timer quite properly and by rule never started the clock.

5) Agree completely. That's exactly what the lead did.

6) Agree. Too bad the trail <b>never</b> blew his whistle or your statement might even be a little wee bit relevant. There was no "continued time-out" by the trail because there <b>never</b> was a time-out <b>during</b> the throw-in. And as for continued time-out, that's what happened the lead blew his whistle for the 5-second violation. No whistle was blown <b>during</b> the throw-in that would have made the ball dead on that throw-in.

7) The timer kept the clock stopped, as per rule, when the lead signalled a throw-in violation by blowing his whistle <b>and</b> giving a continued stop clock signal. There was no "continued time-out" signal before that.

8) Please cite some rules, any rules, that would back up this statement. :)

Where's M&M? I demand that the Redundancy Department show up and cite you! :)

3 & 4) Play had previously been stopped. For what, we don't know. But we have a throw-in and an official bringing in subs. Clearly play was previously stopped. And, as the original post makes clear, the T was clearly signaling that play was to remain stopped, even as the L unwittingly tried to put the ball in play.

5) Yes, this is true. Of course, his partner was already doing the same thing, and had been since before the L gave the thrower the ball. The T, had in fact, been signaling that play was not to continue.

6) The T was signalling continued time-out during the throw-in. Per the OP, "The Trail came to me and told me that I made a mistake because he had his hand up indicating subs were coming into the game so I should not have administered the throw-in." Perhaps you're arguing that the T having his hand up is NOT signaling continued time-out? If so, then please explain how an official properly signals continued time-out.

7) Agreed the timer should normally have kept the clock stopped during a throw-in. In this situation, however, there are more reasons that just the erroneous throw-in violation, since the T having his hand up is signaling continued time-out.

Let's turn this sitch around a bit. What if the throw-in had been successful and you've got a substitution partially completed. Some of the subs have come on the floor, some have not. Some of the players have left, some have not. The ball has been thrown in, and....what, we just let it go and hope the rest of the subs hurry and finish going on and off? Or maybe we T them up if they do finish the substitution after the ball is live? You realize, of course, that the clock can't be running so long as the T continues to signal continued time-out. So...we play on without the clock? No. Of course you'd stop the play. You have no real choice. It's obvious. But why is it different if the throw-in is success and/or you have subs? Your basic premise of if-the-T-didn't-whistle-then-the-play-must-stand is inconsistent.

8) I have clearly cited all the necessary rules, and logically laid out the basis for this statement. It is plain. The fact that an official can continue to signal continued time-out is clearly codified. And we all do it regularly when we keep our hand raised. The fact that the clock cannot be started, even "as per rule," clearly indicates that this continued time-out signal trumps whatever play that official's partner(s) erroneously allows to happen. What other possible, logical conclusion can be drawn?

Now it's your turn. You have unequivocably stated that the T's hand in the air, without subs, is meaningless, despite clearly contradicting 5-9-1. Please provide a citation.

You then agreed with Tony that subs coming and going would make a difference. How can this be? Either the ball is allowed to be live while the T is signaling, or it isn't. What possible difference could subs make? Please provide a citation.

You have said that if the T had blown his whistle before the 5 seconds was up, that would have made a difference. Why? If, as you assert, the ball is properly live. What is your basis for killing this live ball? Surely that basis is sufficient to continue the time-out. Please provide a citation.

You have said that since the T didn't blow his whistle, and the violation occurred, this is a regrettable, but non-correctable error. Please provide a citation.

Finally, you seem clearly to base your reasoning around the ball absolutely becoming live because the L put it at the disposal of the thrower, this despite 6-1-2-Note and my generalization, which you agreed with, that there are times when some other rule takes precidence over 6-1-2. Please explain how the ball becoming live trumps 5-9-1 and the conclusions I have drawn from it. Please provide a citation.

Where's M&M? I demand also that the Redundancy Department shows up and cites her.

Part 1 of a long post
 

BITS, That is decent try. I don't agree with it, but I do appreciate time and effort you put forth. Now I have to accept the intellectual challenge and demonstrate why it is not as you argue.

I will go through your post point-by-point as JR did (although I believe that he failed to grasp your main one), but first I must state that your contention that the ball cannot become live due to the Trail holding his hand in the air fails miserably in the NCAA womens game. Afterall, that's the approved mechanic for chopping in the clock when the Lead administers a throw-in!
Now to your post which I will argue solely with NFHS rules and mechanics.


Yep, so we are looking for something that would tell us that the Trail desire that play not restart takes precedence over the Lead's desire and action to restart it or vice versa.


I don't consider this part to be relevant. The clock is already stopped during the situation at hand and we know that time is out. What we are debating is whether time continues to be out or not. So let's move on.

We have no idea who originally stopped the play. The OP didn't tell us. The Trail did desire to prevent play from restarting and the Lead equally desired it to restart. Who carries more weight in that situation is the debate.


But aren't both officials signalling continued time-out during this action? The Lead is handing the ball to the thrower and holding his hand up. The Trail is standing there watching and also holding his hand up. The timer should be doing nothing, but watching. As far as he knows both officials are happy with the action taking place. There has not been any signal to the contrary. Well perhaps there is. In NFHS, the Trail should not have his hand up, but what timer knows that? Heck, if his partner doesn't think anything is wrong, why should the timer? We shouldn't be playing, but we are! So what carries the day de jure or de facto? Most frequently de facto wins that case.

Agreed and we do have one official attempting to do that. His partner is ignoring him though.


I don't agree with that. Every throw-in has the ball become live during continued time-out. You are trying to say that the Trail is signalling a continued dead ball. Symantics really, so let's grant you that part. The problem is that we have the other official taking action to make the ball live. So now it is A vs B and we still don't have any reason to pick one over the other. Your best argument is to say that A signalled first! We'll have to come back to that.


The equal authority clause applies to game officials on the court, not to the table crew. Therefore, what you are trying to say by this doesn't follow logically. This is a battle between the Trail and Lead on the floor. The timer is not part of it.

You are assuming the conclusion before proving it is true. Why can't the clock start? Because the Trail has his hand up, but you have yet to demonstrate why that takes precedence over the Lead administering the throw-in and starting play. If the throw-in had been completed, the Lead would certainly chop in time and might well even start a closely guarded count. If the play was at the other end of the floor and the administering official was the Trail, he would certainly start a 10 second backcourt count. So if the timer is watching that official, the clock is going to start. At best the timer is going to see the two officials doing different things and be confused as to what to do.
Here is where you can point to 5-9-1 and argue that an official is specifically signalling continued time-out. However, we can't dispense with the first part of that sentence. "If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out." The covering official hasn't neglected to signal in our play because the ball has not yet been touched inbounds, so this sentence isn't relevant for our specific play. Yet I will even continue further and allow for the case in which the throw-in is completed, since that is what you are basing your paradox upon. If that does happen, is the Lead going to neglect to signal? I doubt it. So again this rule is not applicable. We have one official signalling time in and another signalling continued time out. Still no decision on who takes priority. Again I believe that the best you can do is say that the continued time-out signal came first and therefore should have priority. I'll counter that later. ;)

First, I don't concur that you have proven your case. It is at best indeterminate so far. Second, I don't agree that an official signalling or stating that the ball will remain or become dead necessarily makes it so. The same for it becoming live. That's a rather confusing statement, so allow me to elaborate. I went through the case book seeking plays in which the ball was supposed to be of one status (live or dead), but it became the other. I was especially looking for case plays in which the real game action was consequently nullified or could not be nullified.

Part 2 of a long post
 

Here's what I found:

[A]
OFFICIALS PROVIDE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION
8.6.1 SITUATION: A1 is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation. The administering official steps in and erroneously informs players that two shots will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed shot is rebounded by: (a) B1, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; (b) A2, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; or (c) B2, with several players from both teams attempting to secure the rebound. The officials recognize their error at this point. RULING: In (a) and (b), the official's error clearly put one team at a disadvantage (players stood motionless and didn't attempt to rebound). Play should be whistled dead immediately and resumed using the alternating-possession procedure. In (c), both teams made an attempt to rebound despite the official's error and had an equal opportunity to gain possession of the rebound. Play should continue.

In this case, despite the official desiring the ball to become dead, it did not. In two instances, it NEEDS to be WHISTLED dead. In the third, the action of both teams overrides the official's statement and the ball should remain live and play should continue.
Conclusion here, the de facto action of the game takes precedence.

[Counter argument: (since I am seeking the truth, not just trying to make a case against what BITS wrote) The official who was overridden by game action in this play committed an error. The Trail official in the play under debate did not do anything erroneous. He intended for time to continue to be out and the ball to remain dead. It is unclear if his partner did something erroneous.]


[b]2.10.1 SITUATION B: A1 has been awarded two free throws. Erroneously, the ball is allowed to remain in play after A1 misses on the first attempt. A2 rebounds the miss and tosses the ball through the basket. B1 secures the ball and inbounds it. Play continues until a foul is called on A2 as B is passing the ball in B's frontcourt. RULING: The goal by A2 counts, but the error of not awarding A1 a second free throw is no longer correctable. Since the ball remained in play on the missed free throw, the clock started and the ball became dead when the goal was scored. When the ball became live on the subsequent throw-in, the time period for correction had expired.


Here is a very instructive play for our purposes. In red, the ball is erroneously made live. That seems to be what happened in the play under discussion. In blue, game action occurs with this "live" ball. Someone scores a goal, someone makes a throw-in, someone commits a foul. The ruling in green tells us that the game action counts! The goal counts. This game action is not nullified.
However, it isn't perfect for our discussion because I would like to see a definitive ruling on what happens if the play is whistled dead after the goal is scored by an official who realizes that an error has occurred. Can that goal be nullified? I don't believe so, but I'm not the NFHS authority.
Also, the play doesn't tell us if the Trail/Center chopped in the clock. That seems to be the case because the clock started, but what if it isn't the case. What if the T/C signalled continued time-out while A2 rebounded the miss and made a basket, then he blew his whistle? Was the ball ever live? Was the goal scored with a live ball or a dead ball? Does it count now? Does the whistle have to be sounded prior to the release of the try for the goal to be cancelled? I just don't know. Chuck, this should go on the list. Expand this play so that it contains these different variations.


[C]
A SPECIFIC UNSPORTING ACT
10.1.8 SITUATION: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins: (a) charge Team A with a technical foul; (b) cancel the field goal; (c) cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting; and (d) put “consumed” time back on the clock. COMMENT: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.

Game action which is erroneous takes place because Team A shouldn't be making the ball live, when the error must be recognized in order to do anything about it, and subsequent nullification of that game action and the time is even reset.
Of note here is that all can be fixed prior to the beginning of the next throw-in. The Trail came and told the Lead prior to that next throw-in in the OP's play. The officials erroneously allowed the ball to become live and a goal was scored, but in this case all of that can be wiped out. So did the ball actually become live here? Is this play revelant to our discussion? It does involve a team doing something unsporting or by confusion. The OP's play does not. Also, the NFHS was very careful to limit the scope of this ruling to this one specific act. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation.


Conclusion: To me plays A and B carry more weight than C because of its narrrowly construed context. Game action seems to be more important than what the officials mistakenly say or do. The game action which took place should stand. That seems to be the most correct by the rules as well as the most fair decision.

I wish i had my case book, but I believe there is a case where the free throw shooter fumbles the ball, and is about to violate. I think the case says blow the ball dead, like it never became live, and reset the free thorw. (NF)

I know your post was intended for JR, but I want to play too. :)

Yep, that is unfortunately what I think that the officials must do. It is really bad and isn't the common sense method, but it is what the rules say to do when more than 5 are on the court during a live ball. Hopefully, each team is subbing and these can be offsetting simultaneous Ts.

That might be true, it might not. The clock ran in 2.10.1 Sit B that I cited. It wasn't supposed to be running by rule in that play.

Of course he can, but so what? What does it really mean? What weight does it carry? Now you are starting to make the point that you must in order to win this debate. The action of one official MUST trump the other, but which one? Unfortunately, for your case, I believe that I made the point that the rule of your "as per rule" is not applicable here due to there being no neglecting to signal. There is only a failure to recognize a partner's signal. So does the game continue until the partner's signal is recognized or he makes it recognized with a whistle? Right now, I believe that the principles in the case plays that I cited put the trump with the official who administered the throw-in and counted the 5-second violation. You are challenged to counter those.


It is not meaningless; it just doesn't mean as much as the game action which occurred. Why? See the case book plays cited.

As far as the ball being live or dead, it doesn't make any difference whether or not there are subs out there. It just makes cleaning up the mess a whole lot worse.

For one thing there would not have been a violation. That means that the same team retains the throw-in when the game is resumed due to the POI rule. Play was interrupted during a throw-in.
By the strict application of the rules, there should be a T to each team that has subs out there during this action. You can probably get away with not giving them, but if we are talking about following the rules, then that wouldn't be precisely right.
As for the basis for the T blowing his whistle, see the next answer.

There are many examples of officials errors resulting in regrettable situations and teams getting hosed, but they are not correctable. Givng the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and having the throw-in touched inbounds is one example. If the official blows the whistle right after that, by the book, you can't give it back to the other team. What is the basis for blowing the whistle at that time? There isn't one, it really is too late per the rules. That whistle becomes an accidental whistle. = resume at the POI

See my long two-part post.

FREE-THROWER LOSES BALL
9.1.1 SITUATION: A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) accidentally drops the ball before the throwing motion is started. RULING: In (a) and (b) the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again.


I don't think that giving the ball back to the FT shooter means that the ball NEVER became live. It certainly did. If a foul or violation had occurred prior to him losing the ball that action would stand. I could envision readministering the FT with a delayed lane violation.

Also notice that the referee is instructed to whistle "to prevent any violations." How could they violate if the ball was never live? It was live.

Also......

What Nevada said.

I think.

Maybe.

Ok, consider her cited.

Ok, consider her cited.

Sheesh, how do I get dragged into this? :rolleyes:

Now, for those of you just lurking and not actually participating in this discussion, you now see the problems that can occur just because two officials did not communicate with each other. A very simple thing, eye contact before putting the ball in play, can prevent numerous problems (the technical term is "clusterf***).

I've tried to figure out what I would do if this play were to happen to me. As T, I would've blown my whistle a couple of times when I saw my partner handing the ball to the player, so the play would be dead. Now, if I was L, and I didn't see my partner's hand up, and they didn't do anything to alert me, I think I might have to allow the play to stand. I believe one of the main questions being asked is which official has "precedence". My feeling would be that the official that has "on ball" responsibility would have the slight advantage, so they would be the one to take the heat for putting the ball in play without checking with their partner(s).

So boys and girls, I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson these last few days, at the expense of poor 'ol johnnyrao.

JR,
As Trail, my "Stop Sign" counts. My hand will be clearly at my partner's face and the game will not continue until both of us (or all of us) are ready.

As Lead, I will be prepared for a do-over for the same reasoning, the entire officiating crew was not ready and we aren't playing until it is.

mick

And, if you were to come up to me and tell me that after I had put the ball in play, I probably wouldn't argue it. (And, of course, I would have to buy the after-game beverage for putting the ball in play in that instance.) More than likely, if the T is just standing there with their hand up, and not aware that I'm putting the ball in play, they probably aren't a strong official, so I'm going to have to be the one to make the ruling.

I guess my point was all this could be avoided by simply having eye contact with your partner(s) before the ball is put in play. It's a standard line in most pre-games, but it just bears repeating because <B>so</B> many problems can be avoided by this simple tactic.

NevadaRef. That's a lot to consider, and consider I shall. It's a crazy busy day today, but I'll get back to you on this.

Somebody videod you and your crew in a three-whistle pre-game, warming up? :confused:

Here's how my first 2-whistle pregame went. My partner said he figured I just needed to be thrown into the deep end.
http://www.innovision-systems.com/running/pings.gif

Anybody see "March of the Penguins"? Pretty good movie. Morgan Freeman always sounds cool. But there's one shot where all the females are walking back from the sea to their mates. At one point, one of them slips and falls right on its back. The one right behind her just goes, "BWAAH!" Totally sounds like she's making fun of her. I was just reminded of it when I saw the gif above.

Great movie. One of my wife's favorites too.

http://www.smiling-faces.com/smilies...rrendering.gif
Give up, BITS?

Don't blame you.... :D

Nah, just been too busy the last couple of days to dig into this. Yet :D

Don't bother, life's too short.

Take your favorite gal out to dinner & a movie & get fresh with her instead.

You speak much wisdom, Dan_ref. My wife agrees with you. :)

I am happy to report that I worked two games tonight and I can honestly say I did my four point check prior to administering all throw-ins. No problems.:D

This sounds nice, but my wife won't increase my weekly allowance so I can take my "favorite gal" out to dinner and a movie.:D

See how easy it is!

:D