Question?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

I know what book that's from. It wasn't Longfellow.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't understand why you need more. It's pretty clear. By "calls," it's referring to the preliminary signals. On top of that, the voices of experience here (I'm not counting myself among those voices, BTW) say the same thing. The voices of experience in my local association say the same thing. Even though a lot of officials ignore the rule and do it their own way only to laugh later, I've never heard one indicate they thought the rule was different than we've stated here.

One thing that makes me question this is 2.6. When the conflicting signals are a foul and a violation, obviously something has to give, so the officials are directed to decide which occurred first. This tells us that one official's signal is expendable.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by just another ref

One thing that makes me question this is 2.6. When the conflicting signals are a foul and a violation, obviously something has to give, so the officials are directed to decide which occurred first. This tells us that one official's signal is expendable.

Federation you have to report both and go to the arrow on a missed basket. If made count it and give teh the non scoring team for an endline throw in...

Plain and simple, that is the correct way to do it in HS, anything else in wrong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

you have to report both

This is the key. Who says you have to report anything? Haven't we all made a fist, but then just called the out of bounds? When does it become binding? The C has started his PC signal when he sees the lead come in with an emphatic block signal. His hand barely touches his head, and he was kinda shaky on the call in the first place. He scratches his head and gives up the call to his partner. At what point would it be too late to turn back?

I view the case play as a last resort.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Mechanics are not mentioned in the case in question. How could you possibly be required to report both? Picture this. Defender is there all day. Dribbler runs squarely over him. One official signals PC, but the other noticed that the defender's foot was on the sideline. Are these two not allowed to confer and get the call right?

Sure, and hopefully it will be a PC. A player only looses LGP by stepping on the sideline...they don't become a free-for-all target for a collision. If the call depends on LGP, it is a block since they don't have LGP. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it is a PC foul. (I know I may be in the minority on this, but being right is not alway easy ).

In this case (even if you disagree with my opinion on LGP/OOB) it is a discussion over a matter of rule, not judgement. In that case, the discussion and a single call is warranted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

One thing that makes me question this is 2.6. When the conflicting signals are a foul and a violation, obviously something has to give, so the officials are directed to decide which occurred first. This tells us that one official's signal is expendable.

Only because they are two different acts/infractions, not two opinions of the same act/infraction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure, and hopefully it will be a PC. A player only looses LGP by stepping on the sideline...they don't become a free-for-all target for a collision. If the call depends on LGP, it is a block since they don't have LGP. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it is a PC foul. (I know I may be in the minority on this, but being right is not alway easy ).

In this case (even if you disagree with my opinion on LGP/OOB) it is a discussion over a matter of rule, not judgement. In that case, the discussion and a single call is warranted.

For the record, let's say the call does depend on LGP. And let's say that the call in the case play does, as well. This makes the two plays the same other than the line being involved somewhat removes the gray area. I'm not sure whether your post helps my argument or hurts it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't understand why you need more.

He always needs more, no matter what. You're wasting your time discussing anything with him. Ignore.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I know what book that's from. It wasn't Longfellow.

I don't know it. Got a hint? I did a search and it says "author unknown".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm not sure whether your post helps my argument or hurts it.

I don't know either, but I do know that your argument is so poor that nothing much could hurt it.

Again, the rule is clear. If you think the rule (throught the case play) is also "wrong", submit a proposed rule / case change to the FED (probably through your local state).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't know it. Got a hint? I did a search and it says "author unknown".

After further research, I realize I was wrong.
While it seems to be derived from the Bible, it is not a direct Biblical quote.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is the key. Who says you have to report anything? Haven't we all made a fist, but then just called the out of bounds? When does it become binding? The C has started his PC signal when he sees the lead come in with an emphatic block signal. His hand barely touches his head, and he was kinda shaky on the call in the first place. He scratches his head and gives up the call to his partner. At what point would it be too late to turn back?

I view the case play as a last resort.

in that scenario, each coach is going to see the call that benfits them and unfortunately, this is one of the rules that coaches tend to know. I've had it happen to me and my partner gave it up to me. The penalized coach knew the proper way to report that and he chewed us for not doing it properly. We always discuss the dreaded blarge in our pregames and most of the time we all agree to do it by the book. If I had my way all the time we would do it by the book every time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

in that scenario, each coach is going to see the call that benfits them....

And this, I think, is why the rules committee says to go with a double foul. As Jeff R alluded to previously, it's the method that provides the least resistance. Neither coach can complain that he got screwed by the results of an officials' conference.
It's also a strong incentive not to give preliminary signals too quickly.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Neither coach can complain that he got screwed by the results of an officials' conference.
It's also a strong incentive not to give preliminary signals too quickly.

If you go with the double foul both coaches will complain that they were screwed by the lack of a conference. This was my idea all along. One official gave a signal too quickly, and when he sees that his partner has something else, he may be perfectly content to yield to his partner's call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you go with the double foul both coaches will complain that they were screwed by the lack of a conference. This was my idea all along. One official gave a signal too quickly, and when he sees that his partner has something else, he may be perfectly content to yield to his partner's call.

If you pick one call, one coach is going to complain that one official got "overruled" by the other one.

By going with the rule book, you simply have to say "Coach, by rule we have to go with both." It's simple, quick, both coaches are equally affected, and you've got the rule to back you up. This last part is most important, because you're assignor is less likely to back you up if you have not applied the rule correctly in this situation.

Bottom line, the rule is clear and life gets much easier when you officiate by the rules. Ignoring them (or not knowing them) is what gets officials into trouble.